2007 Supplemental Documentation in Support of the Patuxent Reservoirs Technical Advisory Committee's Annual Report

2007

Supplemental Documentation In Support Of The Patuxent Reservoirs Technical Advisory Committee’s Annual Report

June 2008

This page intentionally left blank for double sided printing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Every year, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group completes an Annual Report to summarize accomplishments towards achieving long-term protection of watershed priority resources. The priority resources include:

• Reservoirs and Drinking Water Supply • Terrestrial Habitat • Stream Systems • Aquatic Biota • Rural Character and Landscape • Public Awareness and Stewardship.

This 2007 Supplemental Documentation in Support of the Patuxent Reservoirs Technical Advisory Committee's Annual Report contains more detailed information on several elements of the TAC work program for FY07 and FY08. In addition, the appendices contain the 1996 Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement, the TAC and Policy Board meeting agendas and summaries for 2007, TAC correspondence for 2007, and the Agricultural Memorandum of Understanding with amendments.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... III

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... IX

1.0 RESERVOIR AND TRIBUTARY WATER CHEMISTRY MONITORING...... 1-1 1.1 Reservoir Water Monitoring...... 1-1 1.2 Sediment Oxygen Demand Study...... 1-2 1.2.1 Purpose And Scope Of The SOD Study ...... 1-10 1.3 Sediment Study ...... 1-11 1.3.1 Bathymetry...... 1-11 1.3.2 Confluence ...... 1-12

2.0 TRIBUTARY AND HABITAT MONITORING...... 2-1

3.0 STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT...... 3-1 3.1 Upper Reddy Branch Subwatershed Project...... 3-1 3.2 Cherry Creek Project...... 3-7 3.3 Lower Hawlings River...... 3-9 3.4 Cattail Creek Subwatershed...... 3-10 3.5 Laurel-Area of Reservoir Watershed...... 3-10

4.0 RESERVOIR AND WATERSHED MODELS...... 4-1

5.0 AGRICULTURAL AND MANAGEMENT LOCAL COST SHARE INITIATIVE...... 5-1 5.1 Reservoir Cost-Share Program ...... 5-1 5.2 Positively Pure Patuxent Headwaters Project...... 5-1

6.0 FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AND RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY...... 6-1 6.1 Desired Future Condition...... 6-1 6.2 Forest Conservation Goals...... 6-2 6.3 Forest Management Approach...... 6-3 6.4 Forest Inventory Key Findings ...... 6-4 6.5 Forest Habitat Key Findings ...... 6-5 6.6 Forest Roads Key Findings...... 6-6 6.7 Forest Management Operational Goals and Objectives...... 6-7 6.8 Management Actions Needed...... 6-8

7.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT...... 7-1 7.1 Earth Month - April 2007 ...... 7-1 7.2 Volunteer Opportunities...... 7-1 7.3 Library Programs ...... 7-1 7.4 Speaker’s Programs/Workshops ...... 7-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Page

7.5 Family Watershed Day ...... 7-4 7.6 Charity Bike Ride ...... 7-5 7.7 IWLA-WAC ...... 7-5 7.8 Planning for Earth Week 08...... 7-6 7.9 Brighton Dam Nature Center And Gardens...... 7-6 7.9.1 Weed Warriors...... 7-6

8.0 CONSULTANT SUPPORT ...... 8-1 8.1 Activities Conducted...... 8-1 8.2 Recommended Activities to Position the TAC for Future Grant Applications .... 8-12

APPENDICES

A Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement with Agricultural Memorandum of Understanding and Amendments Charity Bike Ride...... 7-5

B 2007 Policy Board Meeting Agenda and Summary ...... 7-5

C 2007 TAC Meeting Agendas and Summaries ...... C-1

D 2007...... Grant.Applications...... D-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1 Reservoir monitoring ...... 1-1 1-2 Secchi 2007...... 1-3 1-3 Rocky Gorge total phosphorous 2007...... 1-4 1-4 Triadelphia total phosphorous 2007...... 1-5 1-5 Rocky Gorge 2007 Chl-a ...... 1-6 1-6 Triadelphia 2007 Chl-a ...... 1-7 1-7 Rocky Gorge RG1 DO and Temp July 2007...... 1-8 1-8 Triadelphia TR1 DO and Temp July 2007 ...... 1-9

3-1 Reddy Branch...... 3-2 3-2 Reddy Branch Area A...... 3-3 3-3 Reddy Branch Area B ...... 3-4 3-4 Reddy Branch Area C ...... 3-4 3-5 Reddy Branch Area D...... 3-5 3-6 Reddy Branch Area E ...... 3-5 3-7 Reddy Branch Area F...... 3-6 3-8 Cherry Creek Restoration ...... 3-7 3-9 Cherry Creek Reach 1...... 3-8 3-10 Lower Hawlings planting March 2007 ...... 3-9 3-11 Cattail Creek subwatershed...... 3-11 3-12 Cattail Creek buffer needs ...... 3-12 3-13 Prince George’s County area of watershed...... 3-13

5-1 Cost –share projects ...... 5-1

7-1 Volunteer opportunities ...... 7-2 7-2 Library programs ...... 7-2 7-3 Rain Barrel Workshop - Brighton Dam April 10, 2007...... 7-3 7-4 Family Watershed Day ...... 7-4 7-5 Charity Bike Ride Brighton Dam/Triadelphia Reservoir April 28, 2007...... 7-5

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 The elements of nutrient and sediment TMDLs for Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs ...... 1-1 1-2 2007 reservoir averages ...... 1-2

4-1 The Elements of Nutrient and Sediment TMDLs for Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge...... 4-2 4-2 Total phosphorus and sediment ...... 4-2

6-1 Operational goals and objectives for management of WSSC reservoir forests...... 6-7 6-2 Risk of Damage to forests on WSSC-owned lands from forest pests able to cause tree mortality...... 6-8

7-1 Library programs ...... 7-2 7-2 Workshops ...... 7-3

viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Chl-a Chlorophyll-a COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations Deg C Degrees Celsius DNR DNR - Maryland Department Of Natural Resources DEP Montgomery County Department Of Environmental Protection DGPS Differential Global Positioning Service DO Dissolved Oxygen DPWT Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation Fe Iron Ft Feet GIS Geographic Information System HSCD Howard Soil Conservation District ICPRB Interstate Commission On The Potomac River Basin IWLA-WAC Izaak Walton League of America-Wildlife Achievement Chapter LA Load Allocation lbs/yr Pounds per year MDE Maryland Department Of The Environment Mg/l Milligrams per liter Mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter MGS Maryland Geological Survey Mn Magnesium M-NCPPC Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission MOS Margin of Safety MSCD Montgomery Soil Conservation District NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OSI Ocean Surveys, Inc RG Rocky Gorge SCERP Small Creeks and Estuaries Restoration Program grant SOD Sediment Oxygen Demand TAC Technical Advisory Committee Temp Temperature TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads TOC Total Organic Carbon tons/yr Tons per year TR Trees (e.g., “A population of Gray birch (TR stand 3)”) TRI Triadelphia TSS Total Suspended Solids TU Patuxent-Potomac Chapter of Trout Unlimited WLA Waste Load Allocation WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

1.0 RESERVOIR AND TRIBUTARY WATER CHEMISTRY MONITORING

In 2007, the WSSC continued its water quality monitoring program to determine water quality trends in the reservoirs. Also in 2007, two studies were completed: a study of sediment oxygen demand and a study of sedimentation rates. This section reports on all of those efforts.

Figure 1-1. Reservoir monitoring

1.1 RESERVOIR WATER MONITORING

In addition to chemical monitoring, in-situ transparency and profile measurements are taken at three locations in each reservoir. To date, the reservoirs still show a trend toward eutrophic conditions -- an over enrichment of nutrients. The 2007 proposed Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) recommend a reduction in sedimentation to lower phosphorous inputs which will lessen eutrophication impacts. Table 1-1 below is Maryland Department of the Environment’s (MDE’s) suggested reductions in phosphorous and sediment to the reservoirs.

Table 1-1. The elements of nutrient and sediment TMDLs for Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs Triadelphia Rocky Gorge Triadelphia Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Constituent TP (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr) Sediment (tons/yr) Baseline Load 65,953 46,935 32,141 Percent Reduction 58% 48% 29% TMDL 27,700 24,406 22,820 WLA 5,288 7,429 400 LA 21,027 15,757 22,420 MOS 1,385 1,220 Implicit

1-1

Table 1-2 and Figures 1-2 thru 1-8 show Chl-a, total phosphorous, and secchi readings for the 2007 monitoring period (the data is not continuous due to technical difficulties and dam maintenance). Additional charts show summer dissolved oxygen concentrations for Rocky Gorge and Triadelphia Reservoirs.

Table 1-2. 2007 reservoir averages Average Average Average Total Phosphorous Chl-a Secchi Depth Rocky Gorge .03mg/l 4.96mg/m3 6.22ft Triadelphia .025mg/l 6.32mg/m3 7.11ft

1.2 SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND STUDY

In order to provide additional chemical sediment data for modeling of Rocky Gorge and Triadelphia Reservoirs, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) contracted the Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) to conduct a study to characterize the physical and chemical properties of recently deposited sediments, and to provide estimates of the Sediment Oxygen Demand (SOD) for different sediment types, which could be applied to the TMDL modeling.

1-2

RG - 1 RG - 2 RG - 3 RG 1 - TRI 2 - TRI 3 - TRI Jul-07 Jun-07

May-07 Time of Measeurement Apr-07 Mar-07

8 6 4 2 0

16 14 12 10 Reading (ft) Reading Figure 1-2. Secchi 2007

1-3

rg1 bottom rg1 middle rg1 surface rg2 bottom rg2 middle rg2 surface rg3 bottom rg3 middle rg3 surface Jul-07 Jun-07 May-07 sample Date Apr-07 Mar-07

0.1600 0.1400 0.1200 0.1000 0.0800 0.0600 0.0400 0.0200 0.0000 phosphorous (mg/l) phosphorous

Figure 1-3. Rocky Gorge total phosphorous 2007

1-4

tr1 bottom tr1 middle tr1 surface tr2 bottom tr2 middle tr2 surface tr3 bottom tr3 middle tr3 surface Aug-07 Jul-07 Jun-07

Sample Date May-07 Apr-07 a total phosphorous 2007 Mar-07

0.0800 0.0700 0.0600 0.0500 0.0400 0.0300 0.0200 0.0100 0.0000 phosphorous (mg/l) phosphorous Figure 1-4. Triadelphi

1-5

10 ) 3 RG- 1

1-6 8 RG - 2 RG - 3 CHL-a (mg/m CHL-a 6

0 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 SAMPLING DATE

Figure 1-5. Rocky Gorge 2007 Chl-a

TRI - 1 - TRI 2 - TRI 3 - TRI Aug-07 Jul-07 Jun-07

SAMPLING DATE May-07 Apr-07 Mar-07

8 6 4 2 0

14 12 10

) (mg/m CHL-a 3 Figure 1-6. Triadelphia 2007 Chl-a

1-7

DO Temp Depth (meters) Depth 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2 01 DO (mg/L) Temp (deg C) (deg Temp 024681 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Depth (meters) Depth JulyFigure 1-7. Rocky Gorge RG1 DO and 2007 Temp

1-8 DO Temp

Depth (meters) Depth 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 4 30 21 25 01 20 15 DO (mg/L) DO Temp (deg C) DO AND TEMP (Triadelphia TR1) - July 2007 TEMP - July TR1) (Triadelphia AND DO 10 5 TR1 DO and Temp July 2007 TR1 DO and Temp 0 024681

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 Depth (meters) Depth Figure 1-8. Triadelphia

1-9

Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge reservoirs are sources of water for the Washington, DC - area drinking water supply. They are located on the Patuxent River. Ongoing efforts to improve surface water quality are being conducted by various organizations. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin is currently developing a model to determine the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nutrients that would be permissible in the basins. Additional data on the sediment are needed to assess further bottom sediment contribution to dissolved oxygen and nutrient cycling within the reservoirs.

Ocean Surveys, Inc (OSI) conducted an examination of these reservoirs in 1995 and 1996 (OSI, 1997). The OSI study collected 40 cores in Triadelphia Reservoir, thoroughly documenting the physical properties of sediments in the reservoir. However, the chemical composition analyses of the sediments were limited to composite samples from three core sites, and the analyses did not include organic carbon, nitrogen, or sulfur. OSI did not collect sediments in Rocky Gorge Reservoir.

In 2002, Versar, Inc. completed a three-year study during which they monitored tributary and reservoir water quality. That data was used to calibrate the pollutant-loading model to determine baseline contributions to the reservoirs. The monitoring effort also included a sediment flux study to determine phosphorus loading from the sediments in Triadelphia Reservoir (Cornwell and Owens, 2002). The results of this flux study were inconclusive, suggesting the need for additional sediment data.

1.2.1 Scope Of The SOD Study

The SOD study was composed of two phases: a surficial sediment mapping phase and a sediment-oxygen demand phase.

1.2.1.1 Phase I – Surficial Sediment Mapping

Phase I focused on mapping the specific physical and chemical characteristics of the bottom sediments to determine spatial variability. Tasks included collecting surficial sediments and analyzing them for bulk and textural properties and chemical contents, including total, organic and reactive carbon, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total sulfur, and metals (specifically Fe and Mn). Chemical data were used to determine the maximum potential sediment demand for oxygen, and for the selection of sites for in-situ SOD measurements. Physical and chemical data were mapped to document existing conditions of reservoir bottom.

1.2.1.2 Phase II – Sediment Oxygen Demand Determinations

During Phase II of the Study, MGS was to conduct in-situ measurements of sediment oxygen demand at four sites within Triadelphia reservoir. The sites were selected based on differing sediment patterns from the Phase I mapping.

MGS completed the tasks in Phase I, the results of which were detailed in a draft report submitted to WSSC in March, 2006. However, before MGS could conduct in-situ SOD measurements in Triadelphia Reservoir, the water level of the reservoir was dropped significantly in order to complete repair work on Brighton Dam. Because of the lower water

1-10

level, two of the four sites selected for in-situ SOD measurements were exposed, precluding the completion of Phase II tasks. As a result, the study was modified to include surficial sediment mapping and SOD measurements in Rocky Gorge Reservoir. The extended work was to be completed in two phases, identical in tasks as described previously for Triadelphia Reservoir.

1.3 SEDIMENT STUDY

In response to a request by the Watershed Services Division of DNR, the MGS was contracted by the WSSC to study the bathymetry and sedimentation of Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs. Information from this study updates WSSC’s previous surveys and helped in assessing changes in sedimentation rates.

This was a three-year study, from July 2004 to June 2007. Phase Ι of the study was completed in June 2006. Bathymetric data was collected for the reservoirs, the current water storage capacities and drawdown curves were determined, and sedimentation rates for the reservoirs were calculated.

Bathymetric data for the reservoirs was collected in 2004 for Triadelphia, and in 2005 for Rocky Gorge. This data was collected using differential global positioning service techniques and digital echo-sounding equipment. Over 400,000 discrete soundings were collected and used to generate a current bathymetric model of Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs. The bathymetric models indicate a current storage capacity of 6.66 billion gallons (25.2 million cubic meters) for Triadelphia Reservoir, with a surface area of 824 acres (3.33 million square meters) and 5.54 billion gallons (21.0 million cubic meters) for Rocky Gorge Reservoir, with a surface area of 618 acres (2.50 million square meters).

An additional study funded by WSSC in conjunction with the MGS was to conduct in- situ SOD measurements in the Rocky Gorge Reservoir to support development of the reservoir model and TMDL. The SOD results will be used to compare reservoir model output to actual data collected.

1.3.1 Bathymetry

In response to a request by the Watershed Services division of the DNR, MGS was contracted to study the bathymetry and sedimentation of Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs located in Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in the State of Maryland.

Bathymetric data was collected for the reservoirs, current storage capacities and drawdown curves were determined, and volumes of sediment accumulation for the reservoirs were calculated. The collection, analysis, and presentation of this report were made to be consistent with the most recent bathymetric and sedimentation reports from Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs (Ortt et. al. 2000) and Liberty Reservoirs (Ortt et al. 2004) located within the State of Maryland.

1-11

Bathymetric data for the reservoirs was collected in May and June of 2004 for Triadelphia and in April and August of 2005 for Rocky Gorge. This data was collected using differential global positioning service (DGPS) techniques and digital echo-sounding equipment. Over four hundred thousand discrete soundings were collected and used to generate a current bathymetric model of Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs. Several methods of analysis were used to generate the models. The bathymetric models indicate a current storage capacity of 6.66 billion gallons [25.2 million cubic meters] for Triadelphia reservoir with a surface area of 824 acres [3.33 million square meters] and 5.54 billion gallons [21.0 million cubic meters] for Rocky Gorge Reservoir with a surface area of 618 acres [2.50 million square meters].

1.3.2 Confluence

The Watershed Services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources was contracted by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission to provide an assessment of the sedimentation in Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs in the upper Patuxent River watershed.

Phases I and II of the project involved the measurement of the accumulations in the main body of each of the reservoirs and calculation of capacity changes since their construction.

Phase III of the project involved the investigation of sediment accumulation in tributary confluence areas that have been unencumbered by the past and current reservoir surveys. The evaluation was provided a limited budget relative to the size of the areas characterized as tributary-reservoir confluences, but enough to perform a first order approximation of sedimentation in those locations.

The investigation relied on detailed data collection from one tributary confluence in each reservoir (Cattail Creek in Triadelphia Reservoir and Scott’s Cove in Rocky Gorge Reservoir), estimations of the accumulation areas associated with other unmeasured tributaries, and extrapolation of the accumulation thickness estimates from the detailed study areas to the unmeasured tributary confluences.

Data collected included historical photo reviews, topographic surveys, analysis of sediment properties, and spatial data mapping. Evidence derived from the investigation indicates that sediment has accumulated in the confluence areas. Accumulation rates are complicated by the unique geomorphic characteristics at each site, as well as periodic changes in the hydraulic conditions caused by the raising and lowering of water levels behind each dam.

Extrapolation of estimated average thickness of sediment accumulation in the study sites to all of the tributary confluence areas in each reservoir resulted in a total volume of 48 ac-ft in Triadelphia Reservoir and 26 ac-ft in Rocky Gorge Reservoir. These volumes comprise 3.22 and 1.87 % of the measured accumulations in main water bodies of each of the reservoirs, respectively. Only portions of those volumes are readily available for rapid evacuation and movement into to the main portion of the reservoirs because of vegetation growth over some of the areas of deposition.

1-12

The morphology of the area formed by the deposits, combined with recurring draw- downs in the reservoir water levels, appears to have created an over-widened active channel in the Cattail Creek confluence area. Enlarged delta channels may have the potential to increase the efficiency of sediment movement into the main body of the reservoirs, thereby increasing the rate of sediment accumulation in the main portion of the reservoirs resulting from large storm runoff events. The larger tributaries draining into the Triadelphia Reservoir are the most likely candidates for such conditions to occur.

1-13

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1-14

2.0 TRIBUTARY AND HABITAT MONITORING

Biological and habitat monitoring of the tributaries is used to track progress in protecting the stream system and aquatic biota, as land cover changes occur and stream restoration and streamside best management practices are implemented. These monitoring efforts can also locate problem areas and provide indicators for possible problem sources, to help guide future restoration efforts.

Howard County is on a five-year biological monitoring cycle for watersheds in the County. The reservoir watersheds were last monitored in 2005.

There was no Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) monitoring in the Patuxent watershed during 2007. Monitoring is next scheduled for 2009.

However, in the course of researching methods of measuring the results of planned stream corridor management activities, ongoing tributary monitoring activities were identified as being conducted by MDE and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

2-1

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

2-2

3.0 STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT

In 2005, the TAC decided that establishing and maintaining 35-foot forested riparian buffers on all streams in the watershed would be the highest priority implementation project. Howard and Montgomery County conducted assessments on opportunities for establishing riparian buffers in the watershed and Montgomery County selected a site for a pilot planting project. In August 2006, WSSC hired a consultant to work with Montgomery and Howard County to identify possible grant funding sources for pilot planting projects. The first project to move forward for grant solicitation was a 10 acre riparian buffer planting in Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park in Montgomery County. Howard County continues to refine its assessment of properties where there may be planting opportunities.

As reported in 2005, based on a GIS analysis, establishing riparian buffers on all streams in Howard County will require planting approximately 475 acres of riparian buffers on approximately 1,800 separate properties. Approximately 25 acres are on open space lots, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission property, State and County parks and open space. The remaining properties are privately owned. During 2007, Howard County Department of Planning worked with the WSSC consultants to identify suitable riparian buffer projects that would be eligible for funding as well as beneficial to the watershed.

In early 2006, Howard County refined the GIS analysis of riparian buffers using updated forest cover information and developed criteria for selecting properties for planting. Since there is limited acreage available for planting on publicly owned land, the focus of efforts will be on working with private landowners, with an emphasis placed on private properties with agricultural or environmental easements.

3.1 UPPER REDDY BRANCH SUBWATERSHED PROJECT

The Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park is publicly owned. One side of the stream is completely forested with a mature, high quality forest, but one side of the stream was previously part of a farm and lacks a forested buffer. Approximately half of the area proposed for reforestation is still being cropped, and the remainder was recently abandoned and is in an old- field condition. This area includes some moderately steep (15-25%) slopes and over an acre of wetlands. The channel is highly eroded along its entire length (Figure 3-1).

The Reddy Branch restoration project will provide the best multi-barrier approach based on known research of proven field methods for long term source water protection (Carlton 1990; Dunne and Leopold 1978) – addressing a complete subwatershed of the Hawlings River which ultimately flows through the Patuxent and into the Chesapeake Bay. Restoration will include establishing a 100 foot riparian stream buffer along 7,000 linear feet of non-buffered stream, construction of wetlands, a meadow demonstration area, and enhanced storm water management throughout the subwatershed.

3-1

Figure 3-1. Reddy Branch

Upon completion of this project, water quality in Reddy Branch will improve through the reduction of non-point source pollution by:

1. Filtering agricultural nitrogen through multi-species riparian forested buffers. 2. Capture, retention, and filtering of agricultural runoff in a wetland area reducing total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen concentrations, and total phosphorous concentrations to receiving waters. 3. Reduction of highway runoff through the establishment of vegetative meadow filtering area. 4. Reduction of fertilizer runoff from multi-use sports complex by enhancing existing storm water management by implementing bio-retention areas and wetland restoration. 5. Providing shade by increasing forest canopy, thus cooling areas of the existing stream for enhanced aquatic habitat, better nutrient cycling, reduction of algae, and increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations. 6. Reducing soil and stream bank erosion thus reducing sedimentation to Reddy Branch.

3-2

The Reddy Branch project has been divided into several segments for planning purposes. A brief description of each segment is provided below:

• Area A. The mainstem of Reddy Branch parallels the south side of Brookville Road, and the stream passes through a grass meadow immediately upstream and adjacent to Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park and its large contiguous forest. The meadow provides inadequate riparian buffer protection and invasive species (i.e., multiflora rose) are becoming established in the eastern end. Heavy deer browsing in the area, in addition to mowing, prevent the adjacent forest from expanding along the stream. Minor streambank erosion was also evident in localized areas along this stream reach (Figure 3-2).

Mainstem Reddy Branch facing downstream, as Mainstem Reddy Branch facing upstream, as it it passes through a meadow and enters existing passes through a meadow. Photo date: forest. Photo date: January 2007. January 2007.

Figure 3-2. Reddy Branch Area A

• Area B. An unnamed tributary to Reddy Branch flows northward toward Brookville Road. The west side of the stream is bordered by croplands, grass meadow, and residential lawns; the eastern side of the stream is forested and part of Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. The croplands, grass meadow, and lawns extended down to the edge of the streambank, offering little to no riparian buffer protection. Horse manure from the neighboring farm had recently (fall 2006) been spread in the meadow adjacent to the stream. Invasive species (i.e., multiflora rose, Asiatic bittersweet, garlic mustard, mile-a-minute, etc.) have also become established along the stream. Minor to moderate streambank erosion was also evident in localized areas along this stream reach (Figure 3-3).

• Area C. An abandoned farm field is located next to the unnamed tributary to Reddy Branch that flows northward toward Brookville Road. The roughly triangular shaped area possesses a dense cover of herbaceous, shrub, and woody vine species, and is surrounded by a narrow band of woods on all three sides. A few invasive species, such as wineberry, multiflora rose, Asiatic bittersweet, and mile-a-minute, and others are becoming well established in large areas of the field (Figure 3-4).

3-3

Upper end of the proposed project site, facing Proposed project site, facing upstream. downstream. Photo date: January 2007. Photo date: January 2007.

Figure 3-3. Reddy Branch Area B

Proposed project site, facing east. Proposed project site, facing south. Photo date: January 2007. Photo date: January 2007.

Figure 3-4. Reddy Branch Area C

• Area D. South of Brookville Road, the headwaters of this tributary receive drainage from cropland on both sides of the stream. Drainage is currently through low-lying swales that are not actively farmed. Uncontrolled runoff from the fields is causing minor to moderate downstream streambank erosion and other stream channel adjustments. A forested wetland area is located in the corner of the existing tree line along the stream (Figure 3-5).

3-4

Adjacent cropland contributes uncontrolled View of proposed forested buffer enhancement runoff directly to the stream. View is facing west- area, facing east. Photo date: January 2007. southwest. Photo date: January 2007.

Figure 3-5. Reddy Branch Area D

• Area E. A large section of mainstem Reddy Branch, on the south side of Brookville Road, passes through an agricultural and residential area. This part of the stream is bordered in various locations by croplands, grass meadow, residential lawns, and in some places forest. The croplands, grass meadow, and lawns extended down to the edge of the streambank, offering little to no riparian buffer protection. Invasive species (i.e., multiflora rose, Asiatic bittersweet, garlic mustard, etc.) have also become established along portions of the stream (Figure 3-6).

View of the proposed project site, facing View of the proposed project site, facing southeast from Brookville Road. Photo date: southeast from Brookville Road. September 2006. Photo date: September 2006.

Figure 3-6. Reddy Branch Area E

3-5

• Area F. The headwaters of Reddy Branch begin on a large agricultural property on the east side of Zion Road. Part of Reddy Branch begins as a spring-fed stream draining to a large, in-line farm pond, while another small headwater stream begins in a tree nursery and wooded area to the south. These streams are bordered in various locations by a croplands, grass meadow, tree nursery, and in some places forest. The croplands and grass meadow extended down to the edge of the streambank, offering little to no riparian buffer protection. Invasive species (i.e., multiflora rose, Asiatic bittersweet, garlic mustard, etc.) have also become established along portions of the stream. The 2.3-acre pond on the Our House property is impounded by an earthen embankment on its south and east sides; according to Our House staff it has a maximum depth of 9 feet. A single 16-inch steel pipe drains the pond on its southern end; the pipe is covered by a concrete walkway. The pond is currently clogged with algae; drainage and water quality appear poor. Some small areas of vegetated wetlands currently exist on its west (above embankment) and south (below embankment) sides. The pond is forested on its north There is a large meadow on the eastern side of the property that is currently not used, and regenerative growth is taking hold (Figure 3-7).

Pond, facing northwest from the earthen The concrete structure and walkway at the southern embankment. Photo date: May 2007. end of the pond. Photo date: May 2007.

Figure 3-7. Reddy Branch Area F

• Area G. A private community park on Olney Laytonsville Road (MD Route 108) drains northward into a small tributary to Reddy Branch. The receiving stream, located in the strip of woods extending southward into the center of the property, has become severely eroded and downcut. This stream channel erosion appears to have been caused by excessive stormwater runoff. Two large wetland meadow areas, containing numerous invasive species, were observed adjacent to the central strip of woods.

3-6

3.2 CHERRY CREEK PROJECT

Howard County continues to improve the Cherry Creek Watershed, which drains directly to the Rocky Gorge Reservoir. Cherry Creek has degraded due to unmanaged stormwater runoff in the headwaters of the watershed. Stream bank and channel erosion are recognized as contributing a significant sediment load to the water supply reservoir (Figure 3-8).

Figure 3-8. Cherry Creek Restoration

Howard County has completed a comprehensive watershed study of Cherry Creek and identified three stream reaches in need of restoration (Figure 3-9).

1. Reach 1 uses a $25,000 grant from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and $37,600 from the Chesapeake Bay Trust, the County restored 300 linear feet of headwater stream and also constructed three new stormwater management ponds in the headwaters. Construction of the ponds and the stream restoration was completed in early 2006.

2. Reach 2 is a 600 linear foot stream channel located near the Scotts Cove boat launch. This reach is unstable, with grade control problems and high bank erosion rates. The design for restoration of this reach is 95% complete, with construction scheduled to begin and end in Fall/Winter of 2008 (FY09). The project construction cost for the restoration of this reach is estimated as $330,000. A pre-application was submitted to MDE requesting $165,000 in a Small Creeks and Estuaries Restoration Program (SCERP) grant; the remaining funds will be provided by Howard County.

3-7

3. Reach 3 is a 250 linear foot stream channel located upstream of the Harding Road culvert. The channel is relatively straight with a fairly high channel slope. In the lower section the channel is incised, having vertical stream banks and no riparian buffer. Implementing a meander pattern to increase sinuosity will necessitate relocation of a sewer line. The project cost for both design and construction is estimated at $300,000. Design is planned to begin in FY09, with construction in FY11.

Cherry Creek Stream Preconstruction Cherry Creek Stream Construction

Cherry Creek Stream Post Construction

Cherry Creek Ponds Construction Cherry Creek Ponds Post-construction

Figure 3-9. Cherry Creek Reach 1

3-8

3.3 LOWER HAWLINGS RIVER

The Lower Hawlings River stream restoration project was completed in fall 2005. The project withstood the test of several significant runoff events during 2006. Critical reaches were treated within 2300 linear feet of stream. Meander preservation: high-flow cut-through was lowered by approximately 2 feet to meet elevation of bank-full and larger events. Where needed, banks were regarded and planted, structures were added, and large channel obstructions were removed to prevent instability. Log vanes and j-hooks were installed to reduce bank shear stress, improve habitat and retain narrower, more competent channel at lower flows. Flood-benches were provided on the outsides of certain turns to simulate floodplain function during higher flows and to provide a sediment sink. Live large woody debris was partially buried in the bank at approximately bank-full elevation to measure success of this large-scale live stake technique.

There have been two volunteer plantings to enhance the buffer, one in 2006 and another in March 2007. The plantings were funded by the Chesapeake Bay Trust to the Patuxent- Potomac Chapter of Trout Unlimited (TU) and the National Tree Trust to the Wildlife Achievement Chapter. At the Lower Hawlings Project, about 400 native trees and shrubs have been planted along part of the 2,800 feet of restored reach. The DEP provided technical guidance and also acted as a liaison with three local high schools to solicit additional volunteers for the planting phase (Figure 3-10).

Introductions and Training Introductions and Training

Tree Planting Tree Planting

Figure 3-10. Lower Hawlings planting March 2007

3-9

The TU initially committed to monitoring and maintaining the buffer planting over the next several years to control invasive plant overgrowth. However, the volunteer component has not worked out and Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) and DEP staff have had to return to the project to control invasive plants, primarily mile-a-minute and stilt grass. Overall the trees and shrubs are doing very well.

3.4 CATTAIL CREEK SUBWATERSHED

To further Stream Corridor improvement efforts, in the spring of 2007 the Howard County TAC representatives identified the Cattail Creek watershed as a potential source of nutrient and sediment reduction activities. Howard County identified approximately twenty viable parcels of land for establishing riparian forest buffers (Figure 3-11). Reviewing existing agricultural and environmental preservation easements and layering them with existing forest buffers along Cattail Creek and its tributaries identified these parcels. Initially, Howard County intended to approach property owners with Agricultural and environmental Preservation easements, and offer incentives and assistance to establish forested riparian buffers throughout the Cattail Creek watershed. Landowners in the headwaters were be approached first, in order to progressively increase riparian forest buffer from the headwaters to the Patuxent River at Triadelphia Reservoir.

GIS analysis identified areas with inadequate riparian buffer located on properties with agricultural and other environmental easements within the study area, a rural portion of Howard County, located in Cattail Creek watershed upstream of the Triadelphia Reservoir (Figure 3-12). This GIS analysis was then used, in combination with high-resolution aerial photography from 2006, to map candidate locations for riparian buffer projects. This portion of Cattail Creek is bordered in various locations by croplands, grass meadow, residential lawns, and forest. In many places, aerial photographs indicate that the croplands, grass meadow, and lawns extended down to the edge of the streambank, which would offer little to no riparian buffer protection.

During the summer of 2007, the WSSC contractor met with Chesapeake Bay Trust Staff and the Howard Soil Conservation District Manager to briefly discuss the project. During that discussion, the Trust was clear that its funds would not be awarded for such a project, and so further project development was postponed. Instead, efforts were turned to a similar effort described later in this document under the agricultural assistance section.

3.5 LAUREL-AREA OF RESERVOIR WATERSHED

In April 2007, TAC representatives from Prince George’s County identified a priority need to seek funding for general public outreach/education. The goal would be to apply these grants across all three counties,-- thus enhancing protection in Prince George's County as well. In response, WSSC staff and the contractor conducted preliminary research to identify Stormwater management in the residential areas of the watershed in Prince George’s County (Figure 3-13).

Initial plans were made to offer free Stormwater management resources such as downspout diverters and rain barrels to residents during the 2008 water festival.

3-10

Figure 3-11. Cattail Creek subwatershed

3-11

Figure 3-12. Cattail Creek buffer needs

3-12

Figure 3-13. Prince George’s County area of watershed

3-13

. This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3-14

4.0 RESERVOIR AND WATERSHED MODELS

During 2007 Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) refined and enhanced existing watershed and reservoir models to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) to address nutrient impairments in the Rocky Gorge Reservoir and nutrient and sediment impairments in the Triadelphia Reservoir. The TMDLs were submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for review and approval in fall 2007. Implementation of the TMDLs will help support protection of the reservoirs and water supply.

The full 2007 document establishes Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for phosphorus and sediments in Brighton Dam, (basin code 02-13-11-08), and for phosphorus in Rocky Gorge Reservoir (basin code 02-13-11-07).

Triadelphia Reservoir and Rocky Gorge Reservoir have been designated as Use IV-P and Use I-P waterbodies, respectively, in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR26.08.02.08M(6) and COMAR 26.08.02.08M(1)). Both reservoirs were identified on the303(d) list submitted to EPA by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) as impaired by the following (years listed in parentheses): nutrients (1996) and impacts to biological communities (2002 and 2004). In addition, Triadelphia Reservoir was listed as impaired by sediment in 1998. Biological impairments within these watersheds will be addressed separately at a future date.

The water quality goal of the nutrient TMDLs is to reduce high chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) concentrations that reflect excessive algal blooms, and to maintain dissolved oxygen(DO) at a level supportive of the designated uses for Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs. The water quality goal of the sediment TMDL for Triadelphia Reservoir is to increase the useful life of the reservoir for water supply by preserving storage capacity.

The TMDLs for total phosphorus were determined using a time-variable, two- dimensional water quality eutrophication model, CE-QUAL-W2 (“W2”), to simulate water quality in each reservoir. The TMDLs are based on average annual total phosphorus (TP) loads for the simulation period 1998-2003, which includes both wet and dry years, thus taking into account a variety of hydrological conditions.

Chl-a concentrations indicative of eutrophic conditions can occur at any time of year and are the cumulative result of phosphorus loadings that span seasons. Thus, although daily loads were calculated for these TMDLs, average annual TP loads are the most appropriate measure for expressing the nutrient TMDLs for Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Reservoirs.

Similarly, the sediment TMDL for Triadelphia Reservoir, which is based on the water quality modeling performed for the nutrient TMDLs, is expressed as an average annual load in keeping with the long-term water quality goal of preserving the storage capacity of the reservoir

The TMDLs include (1) a waste load allocation (WLA) to one municipal wastewater treatment plant and to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), (2) a load allocation

4-1

(LA) to nonpoint sources, and (3) a 5% margin of safety (MOS) for the nutrient TMDLs and an implicit MOS for the sediment TMDL. Table 4-1 summarizes the nutrient and sediment TMDLs. The table also shows baseline loads and the percent reductions in loads necessary to meet the TMDLs.

Table 4-1. The Elements of Nutrient and Sediment TMDLs for Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Triadelphia Rocky Gorge Triadelphia Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Constituent TP (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr) Sediment (tons/yr) Baseline Load 65,953 46,935 32,141 Percent Reduction 58% 48% 29% TMDL 27,700 24,406 22,820 WLA 5,288 7,429 400 LA 21,027 15,757 22,420 MOS 1,385 1,220 Implicit

Maximum daily loads were calculated by flow regime. Table 4-2 shows the maximum daily loads under low flow and high flow conditions for the nutrient and sediment TMDLs for the Patuxent Reservoirs.

Table 4-2. Total phosphorus and sediment Flow Regime (cfs) TMDL WLA LA MOS Total Phosphorus, Triadelphia Reservoir (lbs/day) <326 852 356 453 43 >326 17,003 1,504 14,649 850 Total Phosphorus, Rocky Gorge Reservoir (lbs/day) <291 770 314 418 39 >291 4,003 1,102 2,701 200 Sediment, Triadelphia Reservoir (tons/day) <326 662 40 621 Implicit >326 25,468 157 25,311 Implicit

Five factors provide assurance that these TMDLs will be implemented. First, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for both wastewater treatment plants and urban stormwater systems will play an important role in ensuring implementation. Second, Maryland has several well-established programs that may be drawn upon, including Maryland’s Tributary Strategies for Nutrient Reductions developed in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Third, Maryland’s Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 requires that nutrient management plans be implemented for all agricultural lands throughout Maryland. Fourth, local jurisdictions, soil conservations districts, and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) have implemented a formal agreement, the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Agreement, to protect water quality in the reservoirs. Finally, Maryland has adopted a watershed cycling strategy, which will assure that routine future monitoring and TMDL evaluations are conducted.

4-2

5.0 AGRICULTURAL AND MANAGEMENT LOCAL COST SHARE INITIATIVE

During 2007, increased emphasis was placed on expanding use of the cost-share program.

5.1 RESERVOIR COST-SHARE PROGRAM

Montgomery Soil Conservation District (MSCD) did receive an application for the Reservoir cost-share program from an equine operation this year. It was the first one received in Montgomery since the guidelines were changed regarding agriculturally zoned properties. Figure 5-1 provides summary information on cost-share projects in the watershed to date.

Figure 5-1. Cost –share projects

5.2 POSITIVELY PURE PATUXENT HEADWATERS PROJECT

Both MSCD and the Howard County Soil Conservation District (HSCD) have determined that the horse industry seems to be the best potential fit for the reservoir cost-share

5-1

program. Consequently, they are working together in an attempt to expand its success. Working with the WSSC contractor, HSCD and MSCD are exploring options to promote and advertise the cost share program. Grants are being sought to conduct other outreach and education to the agricultural community. These grant projects are representative of planned future collaborative efforts.

To educate property owners with 7 or less horses on existing assistance programs to implement water quality improvement actions. The applicants, in cooperation with multiple county agencies will conduct a mail survey to identify watershed landowners with 7 or less horses, They will then conduct hands-on educational events for the identified landowners, provide assistance to secure planning and financial assistance to implement water quality improvement actions, conduct outreach to encourage other water quality improvements on neighboring residential properties, and encourage effective maintenance for project life spans.

The specific objectives of the project are to increase community engagement in actions to improve water quality utilizing Best Management Practices in the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed, focusing on outreach for horse management. This is extremely important because these property owners may not be part of the traditional farming community and may be unaware of steps they can take to protect the watershed using the available agricultural assistance programs. Federal, State, and County funding assistance programs exist1, but these landowners often have low participation in existing programs.

Further, in addition to landowners lacking familiarity with existing assistance programs, elected officials at many levels are also not aware of existing assistance programs. This lack of awareness makes outreach to educate the public a very important activity.

The steps that will be taken to complete the project are that first, a survey will be mailed to owners of parcels over 2, but less than 100 acres in size in phased segments of the watershed querying whether they have horses on the land. Once identified, those landowners will be invited to a series of hands-on educational events (such as 2-hour field walks in evenings and on weekends) throughout the fall and then offered assistance to prepare applications for assistance to implement water quality improvement actions.

The project is intended to:

• Raise awareness about the challenges and solutions to restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers; the mailing will reach hundreds of property owners in the watershed, raising their awareness of the issue. Those who respond will benefit from the educational programs and hands on assistance in identifying BMPs on their property.

• Promote collaborative watershed restoration solutions between citizens, businesses, and government; This is a collaborative project between SCDs and DEPs in Howard and Montgomery Counties and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, exemplifying effective multi-governmental approaches to watershed improvement.

1 MACS, CREP, WHIP, Patuxent Reservoir Protection BMP Cost Share, Stream ReLeaf, MDA Conservation Innovation Grants

5-2

In addition, by working directly with county residents who either own or board horses, this will embody an exemplary cooperative effort between business, citizens and government

• Engage citizens in community-based restoration and protection projects that benefit watershed health; Watershed land owners with horses on their property are the target audience for this project. Thus, those property owners and other local citizens will be engaged in a series of restoration and protection projects to benefit watershed health on their own property.

5-3

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

5-4

6.0 FORESTRY MANAGEMENT AND RECREATIONAL USE SURVEY

In May 2003, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources entered into an agreement with WSSC to conduct a study of forest resources and associated recreational uses on WSSC land in the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed. Based on the results of this study, a Forest Conservation Plan has been drafted. Using an ecosystem-based approach, the 2006 draft, “Forest Conservation Plan for Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Reservoir Properties,” identifies existing and future conditions and goals for the WSSC forested lands around Triadelphia and T. Howard Duckett (Rocky Gorge) Reservoirs.

The goal of the plan is to identify and promote forest practices to improve water quality and regional biological diversity in the reservoirs watershed. Components of the plan include forest stand and understory data summaries, forest management recommendations, and recreational use and attitude surveys.

The study recommends forest protection, restoration, and conservation as long term management goals to sustain a viable ecosystem for sustainable reservoir water quality, biodiversity and, wildlife habitat. Recommendations address forest operations to maintain forest health, reduce density in overstocked stands, and control invasive species prior to forest operations.

During the study, 75 forest stands were identified and sampled. Forest stand data collection was completed in fall 2005, and the US Forest Service decision support software for forest ecosystem management, NED-1, was used for data summary and analysis. This approach includes collecting data on overstory trees, understory conditions, forest canopy layers, and habitat elements for wildlife: woody debris, snags, seeps, rock piles, perches, and ponds. Stand acreages have been generated from the GIS files. Stand summaries include data on species, stocking (trees/acre), basal area (sq. ft./acre), wood volume, site quality, and median diameter at breast height (4.5 ft).

A forest management plan written in 1986 focused on the portions of the forest in plantations (242 acres around Triadelphia, and 411 acres on Rocky Gorge). The last harvests occurred in 1993 and 1994, covering 62 acres of clearcuts in Virginia and loblolly pine and 19 acres of selective thinning in white pine. Some of the harvest and thinning operations that were recommended in the late 1990s have not occurred, leaving very dense plantations.

During the 1990s, deer populations rose, and increased browse was observed on regenerating trees. WSSC began a deer management program in 2000 and has expanded acreage eligible for managed hunts over the ensuing years to limit ecological damage from large deer herds.

6.1 DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION

The desired future condition is the vision of what an ideal forest stand would look like, that management recommendations would be intending to move the forest towards.

6-1

The WSSC forest lands are:

• vigorous and diverse • actively regenerating at levels adequate to sustain the forest • capable of rapidly assimilating and retaining nutrients and sediment to protect water quality • resistant to disturbances that would degrade water quality • resilient, capable of restoring forest on the land after large or intense disturbances

Diversity in species and canopy structure enhances overall forest health, reduces the risks of catastrophic loss of invasive pests on any particular species or suite of species, and avoids excess nutrient releases following tree defoliation or death.

Stands are well-stocked and most have multiple canopy layers from overstory to understory, shrubs, and ground cover. Diversity in height and canopy layers reduces risk of trees toppled by wind. Stands represent a mix of early, intermediate, and advanced stand structure, with early structure have newly established trees, grasses, herbs, and shrubs; intermediate structure having a closed forest canopy with developing midstories, shrubs, and herbs; and advanced structure having several well-developed layers of canopy, significant understory, and substantial coarse woody debris on the forest floor.

The forest lands are continually changing and the exact location of a structural type or species changes over time, but a continuous cover of forest is maintained. Insects and diseases are present at low levels, considered a normal part of a healthy forest. Cultural resources are marked and protected during forest operations. Recreation occurs in focused areas, with water quality impacts avoided through proactive measures to control erosion and litter.

6.2 FOREST CONSERVATION GOALS

The goals for forest conservation were developed through collaboration of WSSC and DNR. The goals were, in order of importance:

1. Protecting and enhancing water quality 2. Providing security for water supplies 3. Maintaining and restoring regional biological diversity within the public lands surrounding the reservoirs 4. Providing recreational opportunities compatible with the above objectives

These goals are hierarchical and exclusionary. Goal #1 is to be completely addressed before considering any of the following three. All actions to address goals 2 through 4 must not degrade the value of the forest to protect and enhance water quality.

6-2

6.3 FOREST MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Several key concepts were used in applying the forest management approach:

1. Management is used to direct how forests grow, die, and regenerate, taking into account current and historic disturbance regimes, stand development, and soil productivity

2. Diversity in stand types and structure supports biological diversity and resilience at the landscape level;

3. Diversity in stand species composition, changing stand structure, and multiple canopy layers support biological diversity and resilience at the stand level;

4. Integrated pest management with monitoring of pest populations and early control maintains a healthy, diverse forest;

5. Riparian protection and limited selective management maintains healthy functioning aquatic systems.

This plan and the management approach build on the Forest Conservation Plan developed for the City of Baltimore for their three reservoir properties, which is based on an ecosystem and adaptive management approaches and decades of experience actively managing forests at the Quabbin Reservoir System in Massachusetts.

The working hypothesis for a watershed protection forest is that of a multi-layer, actively regenerating forest with at least three qualities: 1) regeneration provides a reserve of trees ready to grow following a catastrophic disturbance such as a hurricane; 2) vigorous young and middle- aged trees and stands able to effectively sequester nutrients, carbon and accumulate biomass; and 3) mature trees and stands to ensure mixed-species regeneration through seed crops, and moderated light, temperature, and soil moisture (Barten et al. 1998).

Maintaining infiltration and limiting overland flow are accomplished by maintaining multiple layers of canopies, undisturbed litter, and dense rooting. Diversity is key to resilience since different species and ages of trees respond differently to disturbances, whether a species-specific pest like emerald ash borer or tendency to break tops or blow down in wind and ice storms.

Active management is needed to maintain healthy native forests in the context of a settled landscape.

Changes in natural disturbance mechanisms include:

• Loss of wildfire, which historically favored oak reproduction; • Increased nutrients from land use and atmospheric deposition; • Increased deer population from lack of predators, which preferentially browse native seedlings;

6-3

• Increased exotic species of plants, insects, and diseases like kudzu, gypsy moth, chestnut blight • Increased runoff from developed landscapes.

Changes in disturbance regimes tend to result in changes in forest community types. Studies in the Northeast US have found lower levels of nutrient exports from oak-hickory dominated forests, while maple/beech/birch forests with more readily decomposable litter tend to have higher rates of release, particularly as nitrate (Lovett and Mitchell, 2004).

Maintaining diverse forest species and ages would seem to have a role in supporting stable nutrient levels and minimizing problems with disinfection byproducts from natural organic matter.

Some native pests like southern pine beetle are problematic only when stand conditions favor it, such as the very dense conifer stands that have come about by delaying intended management actions like thinning. Pine beetle damage has already been noted in some of the existing dense pine stands on WSSC lands.

Several of the most problematic invasive species in the woods were originally introduced (with most still commonly used) as landscaping: Japanese honeysuckle, Oriental bittersweet, and porcelainberry.

In the Quabbin Reservoir Forest, deer densities of more than 15/sq. mi. during hunting prohibitions limited tree regeneration below acceptable levels of 2000 seedlings/acre; four years after controlled hunting began, tree regeneration increased to sustainable levels (Barten et al., 1998).

Active forest and wildlife management are needed even to maintain the traditional native forest types and encourage healthy tree regeneration (Ozier et al. 2006).

Management approaches were premised on maintaining water quality rather than increasing water yield to the reservoirs. While it is possible to increase water yield following harvesting for several years, WSSC lands are not of sufficient extent to generate measurable increases in water, particularly if management measures like buffers and harvest size limits are in place to avoid undesirable effects on water quality and habitat.

6.4 FOREST INVENTORY KEY FINDINGS

• Diverse forest species. The forestlands have substantial diversity, with 12 different types of forest plant communities, and over 100 plant species. In the overstory alone, there were 37 different species, almost all being native to the region. Yellow-poplar had the greatest proportion of the basal area overall, with northern red oak, loblolly pine, Eastern white pine, and red maple being the other species making up the majority of the basal area.

6-4

• Tree regeneration concerns. While seedlings and young trees would be expected on all of the understory plots, they were found on only 82%. Oaks and hickories that need young trees established in the stand for normal regeneration were present on less than half of the plots. Neither reservoir forest had seedling densities near or above the 2,000+ trees/acre desired for dependable regeneration.

• Dense high-hazard stands. Inventory data showed several areas of excessively dense stands, where risks of pests and fire are increased and habitat value can be diminished. These are primarily planted pine stands that have not had thinning or other management that was intended at the time of planting.

• Low shrub and ground cover. The inventory documented low levels of shrubs and ground cover, particularly in Rocky Gorge plots. This lack of a multi-layering of vegetation reduces the ability of the forest to intercept rainfall and protect soil from erosion and to prevent sediment moving into the streams and reservoirs.

• Lack of age and size diversity. The forest is even-aged, with trees of the same size predominating. This lack of a diversity of trees of various ages and sizes does not provide an assurance of a renewable forest in the face of small or large-scale disturbances that lead to tree damage and death.

• Widespread invasive plants. Invasive species were well-distributed throughout Rocky Gorge and parts of Triadelphia forests, with several species that can be problematic for new trees being established. Some of the invasive species are unpalatable to deer, while native seedlings are preferentially browsed, resulting in increasing dominance of the invasive exotic species that tend to reduce plant diversity over time.

Expanding regeneration and understory growth are critical elements for improving the watershed protection function of the reservoir forests. Control of two factors that interfere with successful regeneration and ground cover, high levels of deer and invasive plants, is needed to move the reservoir forests to their desired future condition through appropriate silvicultural harvests.

6.5 FOREST HABITAT KEY FINDINGS

• Sparse shrub habitat. Upper level forest canopy was well represented, but other elements of vertical layering of vegetation, especially shrubs and understory trees were not available for habitat use.

• Importance of WSSC forests in watershed function. Reservoir forests are significant contributors to forests in the watersheds, comprising 14% of the forest, but less than 8% of the land area of the two watersheds, which are only 1/3 forested.

• Rare plants in wetlands. The search of the Department of Natural Resources – Natural Heritage Database identified several species of concern along the reservoir

6-5

fringe and a Wetland of Special State Concern, but none within the forestlands. Both of the reservoirs contains areas of uncommon habitat that are of conservation interest and that enhance regional biological diversity.

• Uncommon forest types. A population of Gray birch (TR stand 3) and a few surviving American chestnut trees (Mont. Co. side, lower half of RG) have been reported near the water. WSSC could participate in American chestnut restoration projects.

• Eagle nesting habitat. Rocky Gorge and Triadelphia forests both support reproducing pairs of bald eagles.

• 26% interior forest. Despite the significant acreage of forest, only a quarter is likely to provide interior forest conditions, based on the linear nature of the reservoir forests, roads, and the openings provided by the reservoir itself. Forest interior dwelling birds may use some portion of the larger stands, with an estimated 422 acre of interior forest in Rocky Gorge stands, and 565 acres in Triadelphia stands.

• Nesting cavities present but snags low-Cavities in live or dead trees were found within 93% of the forest units, creating well-distributed nesting features. Snags, dying or dead standing trees, were found within 43% of the forest units, although they would be expected to be found in all units across the forest. Rocky Gorge stands generally lacked high perches or snags, although low perches were well-distributed.

• Woody debris habitat present-Coarse woody debris, dead limbs, and logs on the ground, were found at an average rate of 1927 cubic feet per acre for Rocky Gorge and 1917 for Triadelphia. The total accumulation of this important habitat component is high for the forest’s age and size, though the diversity of coarse woody debris sizes was dominated by branch and limb sized pieces, lacking the larger forms contributed by fallen trees.

6.6 FOREST ROADS KEY FINDINGS

• The reservoir lands contain few internal low-use roads. Nonetheless, the roads extend over 50 miles (84511m, 277267 ft) and cover 80 acres (82.7 ac).

• Stream and drainageway crossings are a critical point for sediment entry, and need to be better maintained to reduce sediment and phosphorus input.

• The suitability of road access for forest management varies, with portions of the roads having constraints for typical log truck size, which could limit management options or lengthen skid distances, which increases costs.

• The existing road network is important to maintain for at least custodial access, although a fully connected perimeter road is not necessary if impacts on environmentally sensitive areas are great, such as a steep stream crossing or wetlands.

6-6

6.7 FOREST MANAGEMENT OPERATIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Management is the means to a series of goals for protection, restoration, and long-term conservation of the forests. Protection involves actions needed to avoid destruction of the existing forest from direct threats such as forest fire, illegal harvesting, dumping, or other damage (Table 6-1). For the WSSC objectives, restoration involves improving the condition of the forest and forest floor to increase functionality for water quality protection, using silviculture to change forest types gradually over time. Long-term conservation means creating conditions for the forest and its functions to continue over time, including planning for regeneration of future trees (Table 6-2). Each one of these is essential to the long-term protective forest functions, and each depends on implementing the other.

Table 6-1. Operational goals and objectives for management of WSSC reservoir forests Goals Objectives Forest Protection 1. Limit land uses on the reservoir forest lands to A. Maintain the boundaries of the reservoir lands to those that do not threaten water quality; control illegal activities (e.g. dumping) and prevent 2. Minimize non-forest land use (e.g., roads), the encroachment. impacts of deer browse, natural events (e.g., B. Manage recreational impacts to limit effects on water flood, drought, fire, ice/wind storms, etc.) and quality. human activities that threaten water or other C. Maintain roads, particularly culverts and other stream natural resources. crossings, and control access. D. Protect the forest from wildfire. Forest Restoration 3. Restore native forest communities to sites E. Maintain vigorous forest cover (Most trees up to 130 presently occupied by pine plantations. years with reserve trees that reach over 200 years old). 4. Restore natural regeneration to levels adequate to F. Establish 535 acres of natural areas managed for quickly recover control of hydrology and nutrient interior forest conditions. cycling following an intense large-scale G. Establish a Science and Technical Advisory disturbance. Committee of experts in natural resource and watershed management to suggest approaches to solving new or evolving problems. Long-term Forest Conservation 5. Maintain a vigorous and diverse forest, with H. Monitor the implementation and effectiveness of all multiple canopy layers and varied species management practices based upon established composition. indicators with advice from the Science/Technical 6. Maintain the forest cover by assuring the Advisory Committee. continuing establishment of adequate natural I. Use uneven-aged, two-aged, or even-aged with regeneration of seedlings. reserves silvicultural systems to maintain an aggrading 7. Maintain a forest that achieves active growth, forest cover within the active management zone. nutrient assimilation, water infiltration, and the J. Maintain approximately 535 acres of natural areas as regulation of soil and stream temperatures. source sites for the natural regeneration of all forest 8. Prevent sediment and nutrients from the WSSC’s plants and as control sites for a monitoring program. lands from entering the streams and reservoirs. K. Maintain 50-foot or greater riparian zones along the 9. Provide for the active assimilation of nutrients streams and reservoirs, restricting tree removal to and other pollutants entering the WSSC invasive plants, control for damaging insects, and light properties from adjacent land holdings. selective harvest to aid native species regeneration. 10. Limit the effects of atmospheric pollution L. As available, acquire adjacent properties within the through the filtering and buffering of pollutants. watersheds that pose a high risk to water quality.

6-7

Table 6-2. Risk of Damage to forests on WSSC-owned lands from forest pests able to cause tree mortality Target Species Likelihood of Species Ability to Control Abundant Introduction Asian Long-horned Beetle Y Moderate Moderate Sirex Wood Wasp, Sirex noctilio Y Moderate Moderate Gypsy Moth Y Present High Sudden Oak Death Y Moderate Low Emerald Ash Borer N High Low Southern Pine Beetle Y Native Moderate Hemlock Woolly Adelgid N Present Low/Moderate Bacterial Leaf Scorch Y Present Low Dogwood Anthracnose Y Present Low White Pine Blister Rust Y Present Moderate

Recommendations to prioritize forest stand operations were based on a strategy of reducing risk from the substantial area of very dense stands. Stands with over 150 square feet of basal area or more than 700 trees/acre were identified as priority areas to treat. The older pine stands tended to have some of the highest densities and greatest potential susceptibility to density-dependent insects and disease.

Recommended treatments are based on the goal of developing more multi-layered stand structure, and increasing natural regeneration present in the forest. The regeneration harvests are designed to encourage natural regeneration rather than planting, and allow pine plantations to develop into mixed species stands that retain a strong pine component.

6.8 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS NEEDED

• Managing Wildlife. Continue and expand the WSSC’s preferred deer control strategy to support natural regeneration of forests and improved habitat conditions over time, essential to the long-term sustainability of the forestlands.

• Reducing Weeds. Manage invasive species, particularly before any silvicultural operation. This may take two to three years of seasonal control (pulling, mowing, spot spraying) to reduce invasive plants, but will involve much less overall chemical use than if not addressed prior to a thin, harvest or other disturbance. Ailanthus is the major overstory invasive species, and is of sufficiently limited extent that it could be controlled.

• Thinning Woods. Reduce density of overstocked stands to increase resilience in the event of pest outbreaks and encourage structural diversity and advanced regeneration, an average of 1.6% of forest area per year for 15 years.

6-8

• Managing People. Reduce the immediate human impacts to soil, vegetation, and wildlife habitat and water quality through:

– Active (programs) and passive (signs) public education – Treatments of high-use recreation areas – Law and regulation enforcement – Controlling access and maintaining roads

• Maintaining Roads. Maintain roads and boundaries for protection, management, and emergency access. Reduce sediment moving off the internal road system. Sediment reduces water quality and is the major source of phosphorus moving into the reservoirs. Improve wildfire response capability by training WSSC staff in wildfire suppression

• Responding to Storms and Fires. Survey stand damage after major storms. Identify damage and need for invasive species control. Train WSSC staff in wildfire suppression and coordinate with local fire departments to improve wildfire response capacity.

6-9

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

6-10

7.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND INVOLVEMENT

During 2007, the TAC continued its focus on stewardship and outreach activities. The TAC outreach committee under the coordination of WSSC Outreach staff organized a wide variety of activities.

7.1 EARTH MONTH - APRIL 2007

The WSSC, along with the local agencies that make up the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group, observed April as Earth Month, with many opportunities to show that we care for the earth, our property and especially our water. We hosted numerous activities for families, local residents and school children to educate our watershed neighbors about environmental issues and ways that we can preserve and protect our precious resource. In addition this year, the WSSC hosted an “Earth Month Preview” event in March to highlight all of the environmental and source water protection programs. The evening included a showing of the film “Preacher for the Patuxent” about Senator Bernie Fowler’s relentless efforts to restore and protect the Patuxent River.

7.2 VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES

Two cleanup days were on the calendar again this year. The Izaak Walton League Wildlife Achievement Chapter in Damascus held its annual spring cleanup in the Upper Patuxent watershed on Saturday, April 7. They provided water, gloves, lunch and a tee-shirt to all participants. On Saturday, April 14 approximately 75 dedicated watershed neighbors, scouts and students met at various WSSC recreation area sites on Rocky Gorge and Triadelphia Reservoirs for the annual Patuxent River Cleanup Day which is organized by the Patuxent Riverkeeper (Figure 7-1). Several other school groups accomplished clean up efforts on Thursday, April 12, Thursday, April 19 and Sat. April 21, at other designated locations. Large amounts of trash were removed from along the river including a four wheel ATV which turned out to be the largest single item removed from anywhere along the river this year. Our third volunteer opportunity, a day with a Weed Warrior from Montgomery County master gardeners program to remove invasive plants from the area around the Brighton Dam Azalea Garden was cancelled due to heavy rain and thunderstorms.

7.3 LIBRARY PROGRAMS

Again this year, source water protection programs for children were scheduled at three county libraries as listed below (Table 7-1). Some of the programs were not well attended and one was cancelled due to no registration. In spite of that, some very important networking was accomplished. Attendance at the pre-school program at the Laurel Library included only one child and his mother and a small day care group that happened to be in the library that morning. By networking with that one mother, we were invited to provide a program about the watershed and source water protection to the entire student body at Bond Mill Elementary School in Prince

7-1

George’s County (Figure 7-2). We also helped them find professional resources to enhance their annual spring planting project and have made a start in helping them towards Maryland Green School certification next spring. Contact was made at the Olney Library program with teachers from Olney Elementary School, who we will begin to work with on their environmental programs. Other parents who attended with their children have asked about programs for their schools, possible tours of WSSC facilities, and volunteer opportunities for themselves and other groups of which they are members. The networking possibilities at the libraries may be worth the effort of continuing to hold these children’s programs. Attendance totaled 139 people plus library staff. The breakdown for attendance at each library is given below (Table 7-1).

Figure 7-1. Volunteer opportunities

Table 7-1. Library programs Prince Georges County Montgomery County Howard County Laurel Library Olney Library Glenwood Library Pre-School: 3 adults, 6 children Pre-School: 20 adults, 25 children Pre-school: 10 adults, 15 children Elem. School: 12 adults, 15 Elem. School: 12 adults, 16 children Elem. School: Cancelled children (no registration)

Figure 7-2. Library programs

7-2

7.4 SPEAKER’S PROGRAMS/WORKSHOPS

Brighton Dam Visitors Center – This speaker series was a great beginning in highlighting our environmental and source water protection programs for adults in the community. As expected, the workshops where there were take home materials (e.g., rain barrel or composting bin) were the best attended (Figure 7-3).

Figure 7-3. Rain Barrel Workshop - Brighton Dam April 10, 2007

Two of the seven scheduled workshops were cancelled due to no registration. There is still work to be done to reach the perfect target audience for these and other similar presentations. A description of each workshop is listed below (Table 7-2).

Table 7-2. Workshops Date Title Participants Description Tuesday, Rain Barrels Workshop 35 attendees Twenty five rain barrels were purchased by WSSC with April 10 (Make/take home a rain an order that was being placed by the Isaak Walton barrel) League in Damascus. Twenty four rain barrels were given to those who attended along with information about using it at their homes. One barrel was left that will be placed on a building at Brighton Dam. Montgomery County DEP provided the hardware for the barrels, and Meo Curtis of Montgomery County DEP and Jeff Deschampes of the Izaak Walton League presented the workshop Thursday, Composting Workshop 8 attendees This was a very good presentation by the Montgomery April 12 (Take home a County Office of Solid Waste Management. They are composting bin) willing to come out and do this presentation again at our request. Very good information was given along with specific instructions about how to put together the composing bin, how it works and how to manage it in your yard. Tuesday, Using Native Plants in 8 attendees Presented by Howard County Master Gardeners, this April 17 Your Garden Landscape was an informative presentation on how and why to plant native plants and how to identify some of the invasive plants

7-3

Table 7-2. (Continued) Date Title Participants Description Thursday, Composting Workshop 10 attendees Presented by the Howard County Dept. of Public April 19 (Take home a Works. (See above for description of this program). composting bin) This presentation was a little less formal, but those that attended got great information on composting and the Howard County recycling program. Monday, IPM (Integrated Pest Cancelled due Montgomery County Master Gardeners April 23 Management) outside to no your home registration Tuesday, Recycling Cancelled due Maryland Department of Environment April 23 to no registration Thursday, Organic Lawn Care – 12 attendees John DeNoma, a Board Certified Professional April 26 How to do it better! Agronomist and Horticulturist in Montgomery County, provided expert information and tips on how to maintain your lawn to protect the environment, the watershed and the bay. The presentation was very well organized and there was so much interest that those who attended had to be asked to leave so that the Brighton Dam Visitors Center could be closed. More programs of this type could be added to our outreach efforts at other times throughout the year

7.5 FAMILY WATERSHED DAY

On Saturday April 21, from 11am – 2 pm at the Supplee Lane Recreation Area, 60+ attendees included families and staff participated in Family Watershed Day (Figure 7-4). Canoe/kayak instruction was again provided by the MNCP&PC staff with 4 canoes and 4 kayaks in continuous use during the event. Additional WSSC staff assisted with instruction and safety during the program. Two fishermen from Bass Pro- Outdoor World came to provide a fishing experience for participants. Rods and reels were borrowed from the Md. Department of Natural Resources fishing program and numerous children tried their hand at casting a line into the reservoir. The instruction was not as good as in the past, so we will find another volunteer for this program. This year we also provided some interactive activities for the children; the Enviroscape model, a watershed game from the DNR and a craft table. These were well received and provided valuable information about the watershed and source water protection to those who attended, children and adults alike.

Figure 7-4. Family Watershed Day

7-4

7.6 CHARITY BIKE RIDE

On Saturday, April 28, 2007--- 9:00 a.m. to Noon at the Brighton Dam/Triadelphia Reservoir, 50 riders participated in the Charity Bike Ride (Figure 7-5). This year, we added a charity component to the bike ride around the reservoir. All riders had the option of making a donation to the WSSC Water Fund. The suggested donation was $22.50, the approximate amount to provide water for a family of four for one month. Most riders were happy to donate to this cause and $1000 was raised for the fund. We also added an optional route which gave riders the opportunity to ride either 20 miles or 30 miles around the reservoir. Snacks, water and T-shirts were provided to all participants. REI and Golds Gym were co-sponsors of this event, providing giveaways, and technical support when needed. This activity continues to grow in popularity each year. WSSC provides all the pre-ride details such as mapping out the ride, preparing ride sheets and instructions, staff and security and vehicle support during the ride.

Figure 7-5. Charity Bike Ride Brighton Dam/Triadelphia Reservoir April 28, 2007

7.7 IWLA-WAC

The Montgomery County DEP and Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPWT) continued to provide assistance to the Izaak Walton League of America-Wildlife Achievement Chapter (IWLA-WAC) in Damascus for outreach events opened to the general public during 2006 and 2007. This included their Annual Spring Watershed Clean-up (DPWT supplies and removes roll-off containers for the trash being collected), their annual Fall Watershed Clean-up, 'Make and Take' Rain Barrel workshops, Energy Conservation workshop, and tree planting at the Hawlings River. In addition to these activities, during 2006-2007, the IWLA-WAC sponsored at their facility in Damascus a series of workshops open to the public, covering the topics of well and septic management, birds and nest boxes, climate change impacts on wildlife, and invasive plant management. The IWLA-WAC hosted the DNR's 'Stream Waders Training' course during spring 2007, in which volunteers are taught how to collect macroinvertebrates to add to the State's information base on stream aquatic health. The IWLA-

7-5

WAC was also a site for the 'Growing Native' acorn collection project with the Potomac Conservancy.

7.8 PLANNING FOR EARTH WEEK 08

During 2007, planning began for Earth Week 2008. There was consensus that an Environmental Fair, on a Saturday in April, 2008 would be an excellent forum for our source water protection and environmental focus for this coming year. It should be a rain or shine event with appropriate tents for displays and activities. The speakers program of this past year would be incorporated into the “fair” with individual workshops being held throughout the day with speakers and hands on activities. The event should be educational with particular emphasis on those things that can affect source water:

7.9 BRIGHTON DAM NATURE CENTER AND GARDENS

Beginning in January of 2007, TAC members began discussions with the WSSC Community Outreach Manager regarding enhancement of the Brighton Dam Visitor’s Center and gardens. Initial scoping was conducted to identify methods of funding to conduct the projects. The WSSC contractor prepared initial project documents to create a “Friends of” non- profit organization dedicated to educational programs that promote water conservation and source water protection practices on the landscape. That could provide volunteer support as docents, plant propagators, plant sale workers, and teachers. This effort culminated with a multi- party summit at Brighton Dam in October 2007 and creation of an Outreach Plan for WSSC management in December 2007.

7.9.1 Weed Warriors

In response to encouragement in October of 2007 to establish a Weed Warriors program, the WSSC contractor prepared and submitted a funding request to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in November 2007 to support creation of such a program for WSSC’s 4,000 acres surrounding the two Reservoirs.

1. Weed Warrior program would target specified areas on selected weekends, quarterly.

2. WSSC employee volunteers can be trained to assist with the interior areas (not visible or

3. accessible to the public) where invasives are threatening new tree plantings.

4. Citizen volunteers can work in visible areas where we can install signage to educate the

5. public.

7-6

8.0 CONSULTANT SUPPORT

At the Policy Board meeting in 2005, the TAC recommended that WSSC provide two full-time staff positions to ensure that the rate of completing implementation items would be accelerated to most benefit drinking water quality in the reservoirs. The Policy Board agreed that WSSC should consider a full-time contractual position that would focus on obtaining grant funding to support implementation projects and also provide more direct coordination among the agencies to achieve priority resources protection.

In August 2006, Versar, Inc. was awarded a one-year contract with WSSC to provide technical and administrative support and coordination services for the TAC. Under a subcontract, Capuco Consulting Services, Inc. has provided on-site staff since August 2006.

Services provided to the TAC include the following:

• Identify and pursue relevant environmental grant opportunities and coordinate with appropriate members of the TAC to obtain grant funding for project implementation.

• Provide all support and coordination necessary for smooth, timely and effective working of the TAC and its meetings.

• Bring together TAC workgroups and coordinate their efforts to address issues of importance to the TAC.

• Keep the TAC current on local reservoir watershed protection issues and studies.

• Report to WSSC’s Environmental Group Leader or his designee.

8.1 ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED

The following tasks were performed by the consultants:

• Routine project management tasks and reporting requirements were fulfilled.

• During the week of January 2, 2007, Ms. Capuco prepared and distributed the draft agenda for the January meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group.

• Also during the week of January 2, 2007, Ms. Capuco reviewed and incorporated comments on the draft Technical Supplement to the Annual Report and provided the revised draft for review by the TAC.

• On January 4, 2007 Ms. Capuco mailed draft fact sheets on the Reddy Branch stream restoration projects to the Chesapeake Bay Trust and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

8-1

• On January 8, 2007, Ms. Capuco escorted Versar Technical staff with Mr. Kagan for a field examination of Reddy Branch.

• On January 9, 2007, Ms. Capuco attended meetings with the WSSC Project Manager and the Versar Project Manager to review contract status and future activity

• Also on January 9, Ms. Capuco attended and served as recording secretary for the TAC January meeting. Draft minutes for the meeting were provided on January 11, 2007.

• During the week of January 15, Ms. Capuco revised the draft TAC minutes and submitted them to the TAC.

• Also during the week of January 15, 2007, Ms. Capuco compiled research on nature centers and began development of a funding plan for construction of a nature center at Brighton Dam.

• On January 19, 2007 Ms. Capuco met with the Executive Director of Our House to discuss the Reddy Branch stream restoration projects and to secure partnership with Our House in the restoration projects.

• During the week of January 23, 2007, Ms. Capuco initiated contact with the watershed coordinator at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

• During the week of January 29, Ms. Capuco met with the Katherine Nelson of MNCPPC to discuss strategy for seeking funds for the Reddy Branch Project.

• During that week Ms. Capuco also met with John McCoy and Claudia Donegan of Maryland DNR to secure their support of the Reddy Branch project.

• Also during that week, Ms. Capuco met with Paul Saiz of the gold Leaf Group to secure that business’ support of the Reddy Branch project.

• Also during the week of January 29, Ms. Capuco spoke with the Executive Director and President of Olney Boys and Girls Club to secure their support of the Reddy Branch Project. A meeting was scheduled and then cancelled due to weather.

• On February 6, Ms. Capuco met with David Plummer of the Montgomery County Soil Conservation Service to identify areas where he might be of assistance in the Reddy Branch Project. As a result of that meeting, a process was developed between MNCPPC and the Soil Conservation Service to contact the private land owners in the Reddy Branch watershed to address forest cover concerns.

• On February 7, 2007 Ms. Capuco met with Dr. Habibian and Ted Graham to plan the upcoming Environmental Leadership Workshop.

8-2

• Also during the week of February 5, Ms. Capuco was contacted by Susan Overstreet, Howard County, regarding a potential forest buffer project the county had identified. Ms. Overstreet will schedule a meeting to discuss the project.

• During the week of February 12, Ms. Capuco developed a first draft and an approximate budget for the Reddy Branch watershed restoration project.

• On February 12, Ms. Capuco met with Ed Gould, a volunteer from Our House, and Katherine Nelson, MNCPPC to walk the Our House property and identify likely candidate areas in the watershed for restoration.

• Also during the week of February 12, Ms. Capuco continued to revise the draft grant application for the Reddy Branch and to prepare preliminary documents for the development of Friends of Brighton Dam.

• On February 13, Ms. Capuco met with Shelley Rentsch of O’Doherty Group Landscape Architecture to learn budgeting parameters for planting plans for the Reddy Branch project

• Also on February 13, Ms. Capuco met with Mitch Keiler of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to discuss the two wetland restoration initiatives in the Reddy Branch watershed.

• On February 16, Ms. Capuco attended a workshop with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to determine strategy and eligibility for funding from NFWF for the Reddy Branch watershed restoration.

• During the week of February 19, Ms. Capuco began preparations for the March TAC meeting and continued preparation of Chesapeake Bay Trust and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant applications for the Reddy Branch Project.

• Also during the week of February 19, Ms. Capuco coordinated with Susan Overstreet (Howard County) regarding potential streamside buffer plantings in Howard County.

• During the week of February 26, Ms. Capuco continued preparation of grant applications for Reddy Branch.

• On February 27, Ms. Capuco developed the draft agenda for the March 13 meeting of the TAC. After incorporating comments, that agenda was distributed to TAC members on March 2.

• On February 28, 2007 Ms. Capuco assisted with facilitation of the WSSC Environmental Leadership working group meeting from 9:00 a.m. through 1:00 p.m.

• On March 1, Ms. Capuco attended a meeting with the Secretary of Maryland Department of the Environment where she described agency priorities for funding during the next 9 months.

8-3

• Also on March 1, Ms. Capuco met with Howard County TAC representative Susan Overstreet and Jim Myers of the soil conservation district to develop plans for a Riparian Forest Buffer project in Howard County. Cattail Creek Subwatershed was selected.

• On March 5, 2007, Ms. Capuco attended a meeting with Chesapeake Bay Trust Executive Director David O’Neil to hear a presentation on new funding sources for watershed restoration that will be generated by a proposed tax on impervious surfaces.

• On March 6, Ms. Capuco prepared a meeting summary of the February 28 Environmental Leadership meeting.

• Also on March 6, Ms. Capuco met with WSSC Outreach staff to establish next steps in development of the Friends of Brighton Dam and the Brighton Dam nature center.

• On March 7, Ms. Capuco completed the Chesapeake Bay Trust Targeted Watershed grant application for Reddy Branch and provided it to MNCPPC for signature.

• On March 8, Ms. Capuco assembled the attachments for the Chesapeake Bay Trust Targeted Watershed grant application and began preparation of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Small Watershed Grant Application for Reddy Branch.

• During the week of March 12, 2007, at the request of the USEPA, Ms. Capuco reviewed the US EPA Office of Water Sustainable Watershed Funding Guide. She also continued preparation of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant application for Reddy Branch

• On March 13, Ms. Capuco met with Anne Harriston-Strang to discuss the Reddy Branch project.

• On March 13 and 14, Ms. Capuco prepared for, facilitated, and prepared summary notes of the March meeting of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee.

• During the week of March 19, Ms. Capuco coordinated the final preparation of the NFWF grant application for Reddy Branch with MNCPPC.

• Also during the week of March 19, Ms. Capuco began preparation of the Friends of Brighton Dam strategic plan.

• During the week of March 26, Ms. Capuco completed preparation of the attachments for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation small watershed grant application for Reddy Branch.

• On March 29, Ms. Capuco met with MNCPPC staff to develop strategies for implementing the Reddy Branch project.

8-4

• On March 28, Ms. Capuco coordinated with the Chesapeake Bay Trust to arrange a site visit to Reddy Branch.

• During the week of April 2, Ms. Capuco coordinated with MNCPPC to assist with development of level of effort type contracting capabilities within MNCPPC for implementation of the Reddy Branch project.

• Also during the week of April 2, Ms. Capuco coordinated with Chesapeake Bay Trust staff to prepare an agenda and meeting location for the visit to Reddy Branch.

• On April 5, Ms. Capuco began research for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Targeted Watershed grant request for the Patuxent Reservoir Watershed.

• On April 10, Ms. Capuco met with MNCPPC staff and a landscape architecture contractor (O’Dougherty Group Landscape Architects) to brainstorm different contracting mechanisms that could be used to implement the Reddy Branch project.

• On April 11, Ms. Capuco met with Versar staff (Nancy Roth) to discuss contract implementation issues, budgets, and the possibility of a second option year for the contract.

• On April 13, Ms. Capuco toured the Reddy Branch site with Chesapeake Bay Trust staff and MNCPPC staff. The tour involved visits to sites A through D and follow-up questions and answers.

• During the week of April 16, at the request of WSSC staff, Ms. Capuco contacted TAC representatives from all signators to the Memorandum of Agreement establishing the Patuxent Reservoir Protection Group to query whether any projects other than Reddy Branch and Cattail Creek were in need of grant seeking assistance. Prince Georges county representative (Maldonaro) indicated that continued search of outreach and education funds would best aid all three counties in the watershed.

• Also during the week of April 16, Ms. Capuco began researching the Maryland Department of Environment section 319 planning grants for applicability to Cattail and Reddy Branch.

• Also during the week of April 16, Ms. Capuco began planning for funding Cattail Creek watershed activities.

• On April 19, Ms. Capuco spoke with a representative from the Chesapeake Bay Trust and provided response to questions posed by the grant evaluation panel.

• Also on April 19, Ms. Capuco began composing a proposal to MNCPPC for transfer of grant funds to WSSC for implementation of the Reddy Branch project.

• During the week of April 23, Ms. Capuco began development of a Chesapeake Bay Trust Stewardship Grant Application for the Cattail Creek Subwatershed Riparian Buffer planting in Howard County

8-5

• Also during the week of April 23, Ms. Capuco began development of a Clean Water Act ss319(h) grant application for areas E and F of Reddy Branch.

• On April 26, Ms. Capuco continued research for developing a strategic plan for Friends of Brighton Dam.

• On May 3, Ms. Capuco attended a planning meeting with Maryland Department of the Environment to discuss the 319 grant application for Reddy Branch.

• On May 4, Ms. Capuco coordinated with Katherine Nelson on the preparation of a 319 grant application for Reddy Branch areas E and F.

• On May 7, Ms. Capuco coordinated with Susan Overstreet regarding the Cattail Creek riparian buffer projects. Also, on May 7, Ms. Capuco prepared a list of support requests for Versar to fulfill.

• On May 8, Ms. Capuco and Tobias Kagan met with Nancy Roth of Versar to discuss technical support needs for the remainder of the contract year.

• On May 9, Ms. Capuco met with Ken Shanks of Maryland Department of the Environment to discuss the strengths of Reddy Branch in securing 319 funds.

• On May 10 and 11, Ms. Capuco coordinated with Meo Curtis, and Katherine Nelson regarding watershed restoration action strategies for the Hawlings watershed.

• Also on May 10, Ms. Capuco began preparations for positioning the TAC for additional grant applications in FY2008.

• During the week of May 14, Ms. Capuco updated the photo records for Reddy Branch, continued preparation of the Cattail Creek grant application, and updated the tracking information on possible grant resources for the TAC.

• On May 22, 2007, Ms. Capuco toured the Our House property with Ed Gould of Our House and a team from Versar.

• On May 24, 2007 Ms. Capuco met with Katherine Nelson to discuss next steps in the Reddy Branch projects.

• Also during the week of May 21, 2007, Ms. Capuco coordinated with Jana Davis of the Chesapeake Bay Trust regarding the Cattail Creek project.

• During the week of May 29, 2007, Ms. Capuco continued preparation of an FY 2008 action plan for grant opportunities, coordinated with TAC representatives regarding the June TAC meeting and grant projects, and distributed materials to the TAC for the June meeting.

8-6

• During the week of June 4, 2007, Ms. Capuco worked with WSSC staff in coordinating participation for the June TAC and eventually arranging to reschedule the meeting due to delays in TMDL preparation by MDE.

• Also during the week of June 4, Ms. Capuco assisted with preparations for the Environmental Leadership meeting scheduled for June 13, assisted Mr. Kagan with equipment calibration, and began research and preparation for a request for Forestry Board assistance in the Reddy Branch project.

• During the week of June 11, Ms. Capuco coordinated rescheduling of the June TAC meeting, facilitated the Environmental Leadership meeting on June 13, and began preparation of a Reddy Branch project task list for MNCPPC.

• During the week of June 18, 2007, Ms. Capuco coordinated the scheduling of a TAC meeting to discuss the draft TMDLs on the Reservoir watershed.

• On June 19, Ms. Capuco prepared draft meeting minutes from the June 13 Environmental Leadership work session for review by Dr. Graham and Dr. Habibian.

• Also during the week of June 18, Ms. Capuco continued to revise the Cattail Creek CBT Stewardship grant application, eventually scheduling a meeting with Susan Overstreet and other project participants to discuss questions generated during preparation of the application.

• On June 25, Ms. Capuco attended a work shop at Arlington Echo Outdoor Education Facility to learn more detailed information on several Chesapeake Bay Trust grant programs. The program was hosted by Trust grant coordinators and Ms. Capuco was able to directly discuss the Cattail Creek project with the Grants Program Director.

• On June 26, Ms. Capuco attended a working session at the Howard County Carroll Office Building with Ms. Overstreet, Jim Myers, Bob Ensor, and other DPE staff to resolve the questions surrounding the Cattail Creek proposed project. During the course of the meeting the group decided to take a very different approach to stream buffer funding and Ms. Capuco was directed to prepare new project plans and grant applications.

• On June 28, Ms. Capuco continued efforts to schedule a meeting to discuss TMDLs and began preparation of a revised Cattail Creek project description.

• During the week of July 2, Ms. Capuco reviewed and distributed draft worksheets on Cattail Creek and Reddy Branch load reductions that were prepared by Versar.

• Also during the week of July 2, Ms. Capuco prepared and distributed an agenda for the TMDL review meeting scheduled for July 18, 2007.

8-7

• During the week of July 9, Ms. Capuco researched required steps to ensure that Reddy Branch and Cattail Creek projects are eligible for MDE funding, continued preparations for Cattail Creek project, and continued preparation for next option year on the contract.

• During the week of July 16, 2007, Ms. Capuco continued researching potential funding opportunities, continued preparation of plans for the Reddy Branch and Cattail Creek projects, and supported the TAC meeting on July 18.

• On July 17, Ms. Capuco participated in a planning meeting for the outreach activities designed to engage reservoir residents in establishing conservation easements on their property to satisfy conditions of the watershed consent decree.

• TAC meeting minutes were prepared, reviewed by WSSC staff and distributed to the TAC by the 24th of July.

• During the week of July 23, 2007, Ms. Capuco met with Katherine Nelson (MNCPPC) to discuss next steps on the Reddy Branch project.

• Also during the week of July 23, Ms. Capuco began development of a funding strategy for a project to enhance source water protection in the Prince George’s County portions of the reservoir watershed.

• On July 24, Ms. Capuco spoke with the national Fish and Wildlife Foundation grants program manager, Amanda Bassow, to discuss funding options for forest buffer installation on private lands.

• On July 30, Ms. Capuco met with Gina Foringer of Versar to discuss contract progress and option year administration.

• On July 31, Ms. Capuco met with Bob Ensor, Susan Overstreet, David Plummer, and Jim Myers to discuss development of a Howard County project into a TAC-wide project.

• Also on July 31, Ms. Capuco met with Deborah Weller, Sandy August, and Frank Wise to discuss the availability of funding to support a project in Prince George’s county and what might be appropriate components of such a project.

• On August 2, 3, and 6 Ms. Capuco compiled TAC comments on the draft reservoir TMDL for assimilation into a TAC correspondence with the Maryland Department of Environment.

• During the week of August 6, Ms. Capuco worked with Mr. Kagan to research possible tools to offer to Prince George’s County residents for groundwater recharge as opposed to storm water management through the storm drain system. Several very good options were identified.

8-8

• Also during the week of August 6, 2007, Ms. Capuco compiled comments received by TAC members on the draft TMDL documents. After review by WSSC management, Ms. Capuco then revised the document to conform to reviewer comments.

• Routine project management tasks and reporting requirements were fulfilled.

• During the week of August 20, 2007, Ms. Capuco compiled documentation of the comments submitted by the TAC members on the draft TMDL regulation for the watershed.

• On August 21, Ms. Capuco met with Sandy August to discussed the planned outreach for horse owners and to discuss planned activities for earth week 2008.

• Also during the week of August 20, 2007, Ms. Capuco drafted an agenda for the September 2007 TAC meeting.

• On August 27, 2007, Ms. Capuco continued preparation of a project description for the horse farm educational projects being planned for Howard and Montgomery Counties.

• Sept 5 -- Ms. Capuco coordinated with Katherine regarding a site visit to Reddy Branch stream valley park and coordinated with Susan Overstreet and Angela Morales to incorporate their comments for the draft Annual Report.

• On Sept 6 Ms. Capuco met with Tobias Kagan and Laura Swisher of general counsel to discuss the possibility of working with the horse farm manager to implement BMPs as a demonstration project to support the TAC efforts to implement BMPs on small horse farms

• On Sept 6 draft TAC agenda for 9=18 was provided.

• On Sept 7, draft TAC agenda was distributed

• On Sept 7 Ms. Capuco visited Reddy branch stream valley park with MNCPPC staff Rob, Katherine, and Doug Redmond to develop a scope of work and budget for implementation of forest buffer on areas A and B.

• On September 10, Ms. Capuco met with Katherine Nelson of MNCPPC to develop budget and scopes for the Reddy Branch project

• On September 12, Ms. Capuco researched funding opportunities for TAC outreach projects.

• On September 14, Ms. Capuco attended a meeting of the TAC Outreach Committee

• Also on September 14, Ms. Capuco attended the Governor’s Grants Conference in College Park Maryland.

8-9

• On September 17, ms. Capuco prepared an initial draft of the TAC annual report, incorporating comments provided by Howard County TAC members.

• Also on September 17, Ms. Capuco met with TAC member Sandy August to discuss funding opportunities identified on September 12 and the outreach approach for the Reddy Branch projects.

• On September 18, 2007, Ms. Capuco attended the TAC meeting at WSSC

• Also on September 18, Ms. Capuco prepared a draft Chesapeake Bay Trust Mini- Grant application for the horse pasture BMP project.

• On September 20, 2007, Ms. Capuco prepared minutes of the TAC meeting of the 18th and following review by Mr. Kagan, they were submitted for review by Dr. Habibiban.

• On September 21, 24, 25, and 27 Ms. Capuco continued work on the TAC Annual report.

• Routine project management tasks and reporting requirements were fulfilled.

• On October 1, 2007, Ms. Capuco provided the draft TAC annual report for review by Martin Chandler. He provided comments which were then incorporated throughout the week.

• On October 2, 2007, Ms. Capuco met with Nancy Roth of Versar to discuss workload and staffing.

• On October 4, 2007, Ms. Capuco completed the Chesapeake Bay Trust grant application for the Howard Soil Conservation District

• On October 9, the revised draft TAC annual report was provided for review by the TAC members.

• On October 10, 2007, Ms. Capuco met with MNCPPC and Our House, Inc. to discuss implementation of the Reddy Branch project portion on property owned by Our House (RBF)

• On October 11, 2007, Ms. Capuco completed the first draft of the Reddy Branch RBA grant application.

• During the week of October 15, Ms. Capuco completed preparation of a $5,000 grant request to the Chesapeake Bay Trust for riparian forest buffer planting in a portion of Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. MNCPPC will submit the grant application directly.

• Also during the week of October 15, Ms. Capuco continued incorporation of TAC member comments on the draft Annual Report. She also prepared a first draft of the

8-10

power point presentation to the Policy Board at the November 8 Policy Board Meeting.

• On October 18, Ms. Capuco met with Nancy Roth of Versar, and WSSC staff and management to discuss the contract status.

• During the week of October 22, Ms. Capuco continued to complete preparation of the TAC annual report.

• On October 23, Ms. Capuco attending a planning meeting with WSSC outreach staff and other interested parties at Brighton Dam to discuss potential outreach uses at that facility.

• On October 25, Ms. Capuco prepared and submitted a preliminary grant application to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Pulling Together Initiative grant program for $22,500 in outreach support for WSSC.

• Also on October 25, Ms. Capuco met with Versar project team members to coordinated their work in preparation of several Reddy Branch grant applications.

• On the week of October 29, 2007, Ms. Capuco consolidated TAC comments on the draft Policy Board presentation and assisted WSSC staff with revisions to the presentation. The Annual Report was also completed during that week and posted to the WSSC web site.

• Also during the week of October 29, Ms. Capuco coordinated with Versar staff for the preparation of grant applications on Reddy Branch area B.

• On November 1, Ms. Capuco met with staff from Our House to plan grant preparation in furtherance of the establishment of riparian forest buffer on their property.

• During the week of November 5, Ms. Capuco continued coordination with Versar staff regarding MNCPPC grant applications, She also coordinated directly with volunteers at Our House regarding reforestation on their portions of the Reddy Branch sub watershed.

• Also during the week of November 5, Ms. Capuco assisted with the preparation of and distribution of the Policy Board meeting agenda.

• On November 6, Ms. Capuco provided WSSC outreach staff with project summaries for the Brighton Dam volunteer recruitment garden and the Stormwater management demonstration.

• On November 8, Ms. Capuco assisted with facilitation of and note taking for the Policy Board meeting.

8-11

• On November 9, Ms. Capuco coordinated directly with the Chesapeake Bay Trust regarding submission of the Mini-grant application for Reddy Branch and the Stewardship grant application.

• On November 13, a draft grant application for the Chesapeake Bay Trust Stewardship grant program was provided to MNCPPC for reforestation of the Reddy Branch. Revisions were made and the draft was resubmitted on the 15th of November.

• On the 16th of November, Ms. Capuco began planning with Versar regarding the establishment of forest on the 10 acres of designated forest conservation bank on the Our House portion of Reddy Branch.

• Throughout the week of November 19, Ms. Capuco continued revising and finalizing the Chesapeake Bay Trust Reddy Branch Stewardship Grant application.

• On November 19, Ms. Capuco prepared a draft table of contents for the TAC Annual Report Technical Supplement.

• On November 21, 2007, Ms. Capuco incorporated comments on the draft Policy Board meeting minutes and distributed the revised minutes to the TAC.

8.2 RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES TO POSITION THE TAC FOR FUTURE GRANT APPLICATIONS

According to the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland, Financing is predicated on two key activities:

1. Identifying and leveraging sustainable revenue

2. Spending the money efficiently with high return on investment

With that in mind, and based on 10 month’s experience attempting to seek grant funding, the following activity is recommended to continue TAC pursuit of grant funds.

Take steps needed to obtain top administration recommendations for receipt of EPA directed funds (i.e., targeted watershed, CWA ss319 and Small Creeks and Estuaries)

¾ Delineate projects by subwatershed Identify each subshed’s ideal source water protection measures and ancillary benefits (i.e. habitat preservation) Prioritize projects by defensible criterion – Link project prioritization to TMDL determinations Specifically identify potential tangible, measurable environmental results Develop cost estimates for projects

8-12

¾ Develop a WRAS similar to the Corsica and Hawlings documents Gather all studies within Reservoir Watershed Develop GIS layers needed – CSPS subwatershed boundaries – Soils – Topography – Existing land use ♦ AgBMPs ♦ Woodlands ♦ Open spaces ♦ Developed areas – Impervious areas ♦ Building roofs ♦ Parking lots ♦ Roads ♦ Sidewalks – Existing SWM ponds – Storm drain system – Monitoring stations – Streams – Property boundaries – Wetlands Prepare compilation documentation

¾ Obtain letters of support for Priority Resources and Work Plan from top-level managers at all TAC agencies County Executives MDE Secretary DNR Secretary

¾ Engage EPA Region 3

¾ Ready/prepare projects for implementation Secure in-kind resources Resolve contractual issues Remove internal barriers – Sign-off fears – Inter-departmental cooperation

Partner sufficiently with a 501c(3) to be able to seek Foundation grants for projects together

¾ Revitalize Effort to partner with Patuxent Riverkeeper ¾ Engage Chesapeake Bay Foundation ¾ Engage Center for Watershed Protection ¾ Engage Izaak Walton League ¾ Others?

8-13

Strengthen community and business partnerships to show volunteerism and community support

¾ Work with community to develop appropriate goals, objectives and strategies for projects Define community roles Identify community capacity gaps (i.e., education) Develop marketing strategy to unify stakeholder perception of projects

¾ Focus Reddy Branch outreach on Olney Mill Community Association Olney Boys and Girls Club Rosa Parks MS Belmont ES Local Chamber of Commerce/Business Association Area developers Neighboring Farms Our House Others?

¾ Focus Cattail Creek outreach on Local schools Residents Civic clubs Area developers Others?

Develop a funding strategy for the Reservoir watershed as a whole

¾ Develop a funding feasibility study Engage funding stakeholders – Campbell Foundation – Chesapeake Bay Trust Engage other experts – Environmental Finance Center UMD – Center for Watershed Protection Engage project participants – TAC – Community members

¾ Review and map approach to potential funding sources already identified Develop prioritization criterion – Type of opportunity – Dollar level – Administrative burden – Dissemination of cash – Political barriers

8-14

Prioritize all opportunities including re-applying where denied Develop 18 month calendar

¾ Establish a financing workgroup charged with developing and implementing the strategy to make financing goals a reality

8-15

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

8-16

APPENDIX A

PATUXENT RESERVOIRS WATERSHED PROTECTION AGREEMENT WITH AGRICULTURAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND AMENDMENTS

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

A-11

A-12

A-13

A-14

A-15

A-16

A-17

A-18

A-19

A-20

APPENDIX B

2007 POLICY BOARD MEETING AGENDA AND SUMMARY

B-1

B-2

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

Policy Board Fariba Kassiri (Chair) Montgomery County William Barnes Howard Soil Conservation District Andrew Brunhart Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission R. Bruce Crawford (absent) MNCP&PC (absent) George Lechlider Montgomery Soil Conservation District Ken Ulman (represented by Ian Kennedy) Howard County Charles Wilson Prince George’s County (represented by Jerry Maldonado)

Technical Advisory Committee Other Attendees Mohammad Habibian – Chair WSSC Carrie Capuco Capuco Consulting Meosotis Curtis MCDEP Martin Chandler WSSC Jerry Maldonado PGDER Tobias Kagan WSSC Paul Meyer PGHD Lindsey Leiterman HCDPZ Katherine Nelson MNCPPC Angela Morales HCDPW Bert Nixon HCHD William Richkus Versar Susan Overstreet HCDPZ Nancy Roth Versar David Plummer MSCD Howard Saltzman HCDPW Absent Stan Wong MCDPS Gul Behsudi MDE Kristal McCormick HSCD John McCoy DNR

Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose of Meeting

1. The meeting was called to order at approximately 1:35 p.m. Ms. Kassiri welcomed all present and asked that the participants introduce themselves. Following introductions, she welcomed the TAC Chair (Dr. Habibian) for presentation of the 2007 accomplishments.

2007 Accomplishments and Annual Report

1. Dr. Habibian presented the background information and efforts that preceded the formation of the Watershed Protection Group, summarized the TAC accomplishments over the past 12 months, and described the challenges ahead. The background information included the role of the reservoirs in water supply, the threat they were facing and the need for a partnership to address the threats. The accomplishments included the efforts of the partners for various watershed priority resources. The main future challenge was described as developing a plan and providing funding to meet the requirements that may be set by the TMDL, when/if it is approved by the EPA. (For detail see attached presentation).

B-3

Policy Board Discussion

1. 2007 Annual Report − Following Dr. Habibian’s presentation, Ms. Kassiri thanked everyone who had contributed to the years’ accomplishments. She then opened the floor for comment. There being none, she turned the discussion to 2008.

2. Proposed 2008 Work Program and Funding − Ms. Kassiri explained that in light of the impending promulgation of Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for the watershed, she felt it would be appropriate to have the Policy Board vote their approval of the proposed budget and work plan for 2008. She called for the vote, and both the budget and work plan, as presented by Dr. Habibian, were unanimously approved.

Administrative Business

1. The Chair then passed to Charles Wilson of Prince Georges County.

All present were thanked again for their attendance and the meeting adjourned at approximately 2:15 p.m.

B-4

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group Annual Policy Board Meeting

November 8, 2007 1:30 p.m. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Auditorium

Policy Board

William Barnes Howard Soil Conservation District Andrew Brunhart Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Fariba Kassiri Montgomery County George Lechlider Montgomery Soil Conservation District R. Bruce Crawford Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission Ken Ulman Howard County Charles Wilson Prince George's County

Welcome, Introductions, and Purpose F. Kassiri (Policy Board Chair)

2007 TAC Annual Report and Accomplishments M. Habibian (TAC Chair)

Policy Board Discussion Policy Board 1. 2007 Annual Report 2. Proposed 2008 Work Program and Funding

Administrative Business Policy Board 1. Transfer of Chair to Prince Georges County

Adjournment Prince Georges County (Policy Board Chair)

B-5

B-6

APPENDIX C

2007 TAC MEETING AGENDAS AND SUMMARIES

C-1

C-2

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group

Technical Advisory Committee

Meeting Summary

January 9, 2007

Technical Advisory Committee Other Attendees Gul Behsudi (alternate) MDE Sandy August WSSC Meosotis Curtis MCDEP Jim Benton WSSC Mohammad Habibian WSSC Carrie Capuco Capuco Consulting Jerry Maldonado PGDER Gina Foringer Versar Kristal McCormick HCSCD Tobias Kagan WSSC Paul Meyer PGHD Angela Morales HCDPW Bert Nixon HCHD Jennifer Shore Versar Susan Overstreet HCDPZ Deborah Weller PGDER Dave Plummer MCSD Frank Wise PGCHD Howard Saltzman HCDPW Absent Mark Symborski MNCP&PC Sharon Mariaca HCSCD Stan Wong MCDPS John McCoy DNR Katherine Nelson MNCPPC

Administrative Business

1. September 2006 meeting summary approved with 1 correction: – The letter “e” will be inserted in Dawn Forsythe’s name

2. November 2006 Policy Board meeting summary was approved with 2 corrections: – Last names for Jim Neustadt and Joe Zorica were misspelled

3. Transfer to New Chair: At this time, Ms. Overstreet transferred the chairmanship of the TAC to Dr. Habibian and the Vice-Chair to Kristal McCormick. Dr. Habibian then introduced two guest attendees from Versar, Inc. – Ms. Gina Foringer and Ms. Jennifer Shore. He added that some funds are available for technical support of any Patuxent watershed related projects that other agencies may want to pursue and encouraged members to contact Versar, Inc for such support via Ms. Capuco and Mr. Kagan. Ms. Foringer explained that she leads the support team from Versar for the contract to support the TAC. She offered a short history of Versar and stated that her expertise lies in project management and Ms. Shores’ lies in watershed communications and group facilitation. All members of the TAC then introduced themselves briefly.

4. Round Table Discussion: Dr. Habibian then initiated a discussion of the goals for the partnership over the next year. He called upon Mr. Kagan to initiate the discussion and state WSSC goals from his viewpoint. Each member’s statements and ensuing discussion are summarized below.

C-3

– Mr. Kagan’s 2007 goals included – having the grants program working; continuation of water quality monitoring; completion of the sediment oxygen demand studies (SOD); application of an automatic profiler; and integration with the Green Schools.

– Dr. Habibian added goals of keeping the grants contractor and finishing all dragging contracts such as the forestry study and modeling project.

– Ms. August’s 2007 goals included – continuing to grow the campfire event; and implementation of a “Green Schools – Green Lawns Program.” Discussion then followed on what that project would entail. Ms. August and Ms. Capuco explained that a grant application had been prepared and submitted to the USEPA to fund a demonstration stewardship project with a public utility certifying various properties for watershed-friendly practices. They explained that the first phase of the proposed program would be a study phase. Members of the TAC expressed interest in ensuring that the program is unique and does not replicate existing programs.

– Mr. Benton’s 2007 goals included – continued implementation of the management changes implemented in July 2006 which consolidated the reservoir staff into one office. He explained that this management change had made his staff more efficient and more responsive to reservoir maintenance. He also stated that in 2007 he hoped to move the horse trail to the edge of the reservoir property to better protect the drinking water from fecal contamination. In addition, in 2007 he hoped to continue achieving outreach goals with hope of a new building to house staff and a larger nature center.

– Mr. Behsudi’s 2007 goals included – continued commitment to support the TAC; continued water quality monitoring; implementation of source water protection assessment recommendations; continued support of the grants contractor; more study of disinfectant byproducts; growth in source water assessment funding; use of available storm water management funding; use (if necessary) of loan funds for riparian buffers. Discussion followed regarding levels of participation and interest rates charged for these loans. Mr. Behsudi confirmed that participation is not high and the interest runs at approximately 4%. Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Behsudi clarified that the interest rate for the state revolving loan used to acquire land or a conservation easement from a willing seller, and voluntary source water protection measures within the watershed of a drinking water source is zero percent ; the interest rate for the construction projects loans such as storm water managements, water treatment plants will be determined by MDE and may be combination of loan and grants. Check the MDE website for the latest rate.

– Ms Overstreet’s and Mr. Saltzman’s 2007 goal was to continue work on implementing the riparian buffer project. Mr. Saltzman also expressed interest in continuing implementation projects in the Cherry Creek watershed.

C-4

– Mr. Wong stated that he had no ongoing project goals for the TAC for 2007, but that he continued to be interested in looking at new technologies and innovative ways to protect source water. Discussion continued regarding possible source water protection regulations. Mr. Behsudi indicated that MDE reviews source water protection issues in the process of reviewing storm water permits. In addition, he indicated that all counties will incorporate source water protection in their revised comprehensive plans. Mr. Wong indicated that regulations were not under development at this time.

Discussion then turned to land available for development within the watershed and what the current model and previous models had predicted regarding build out. Mr. Maldonado questioned at what development point it becomes critical for the TAC to take aggressive action to protect the watershed. Dr. Habibian explained that a previous model run by TetraTech showed that full development will not change the reservoir condition. He encouraged the group to wait to see what information the new TMDL model will offer in September. Ms. Overstreet raised concerns that the TMDL model will not provide enough information for resolving non-point-source issues. Ms. Curtis offered the suggestion that the TAC review its past goals to determine whether the TAC has baseline condition information to identify future changes in condition. After further discussion it was agreed that once the new TMDL model is received the TAC should look back at goals set previously to determine whether they are adequate.

– Mr. Maldonado’s 2007 goals included – an increase of Green Schools in Prince Georges County; revisions to septic regulations; application of low impact development in the watershed areas of Prince Georges County; and further study of those who recreate on the reservoir and reside in Prince George’s County. In addition, Mr. Maldonado commended Howard and Montgomery counties for their efforts to protect the watershed. Mr. Maldonado then posed a question regarding the availability of monitoring data for bio-retention areas. Mr. Wise indicated that data has been collected at the University of Maryland and that it appears bio-retention is effective.

– Ms. Curtis’ stated that her 2007 goal was to understand what might happen to the watershed in the future. This would perhaps result in shifting of resources to increase protection in the watershed. Ms. Curtis also commended WSSC on the outreach program successes and expressed interest in continuing the Reddy Branch project.

– Mr. Nixon indicated that for 2007 he does not have many watershed related priorities other than studying pre-treatment scenarios. He did indicate that the policy staff working on changes to well and septic regulations need to be shown that tangible protection progress is being made as a result of policy changes. He was eager to reassess the regulations after the TMDL model is complete.

– Mr. Plummer’s 2007 priorities include focusing on use of cover crops. He questioned whether the WSSC Consent Decree would offer any funds to support this activity. Discussion followed regarding how much land the Consent Decree dollars could

C-5

purchase and the use of easements as an alternative. Mr. Kagan explained that the Maryland Environmental Trust would soon enter into a contract with WSSC to conduct outreach and identify possible easement participants. Mr. Kagan posed the question to the TAC of whether any members present knew of land owners who might donate or sell easements. Ms. McCormick indicated that in Howard County the impression was that all property owners who were interested in easements had already offered their property. Ms. Overstreet added that in Howard County agricultural easements were recently offered at a considerably higher price than they had been offered in the past. Only four property owners applied to accept an easement. Mr. Plummer then suggested that those property owners and any other agricultural easement holders should be approached to additionally burden their property with environmental preservation easements to protect the watershed.

At that point, Dr. Habibian drew the discussion to a close. He explained that Ms. McCormick and he would offer the ideas back to TAC members in a list that they should prioritize. The list would be used to select issues to be focused in the coming year.

Old Business

1. Reservoir/Watershed Models: Mr. Rule could not attend the meeting to present the progress on modeling efforts. He had provided a brief handout that was distributed to TAC members as an interim information item. .

2. Watershed Staff Reorganization: Dr. Habibian reviewed what Mr. Benton had offered regarding the reorganization during the Round Table discussion.

3. Public Outreach Reorganization: Ms. August reminded the TAC of the new outreach structure within WSSC that Dawn Forsythe had explained at the previous TAC meeting. Ms. August indicated that this reorganization has resulted in additional WSSC staff being assigned to cover TAC-related outreach activities. Ms. August stated that at this time the following outreach activities are underway or have been scheduled: a. Speakers Bureau – under development with four programs that can be delivered to community groups i. Can the Grease – focusing on kitchen grease ii. Water Power – focusing on children drinking water to stay healthy iii. Water Winners – focusing on water conservation lessons for High School aged students iv. Enviroscape – source water protection b. Earth month i. Earth Month Fair/Sneak Preview March 21, 2007 at WSSC Auditorium. A viewing of the film “Preacher for the Patuxent” will be offered. All Earth Month event participants will be offered space for tables and displays. The fair will be held on the ground level balcony. ii. Library programs will be offered in the evenings for elementary school students and during the daytime for pre schoolers iii. Patuxent River Cleanup will occur on April 14, 2007 iv. Brighton Dam focus programs in the evenings

C-6

1. Composting 2. Rain Barrels 3. Integrated Pest Management 4. Native Plants v. Bike around the Reservoir will be held on the last Sunday in April. This event will be coordinated by a WSSC volunteer. vi. Weed Warriors Event to tackle kudzu, bittersweet, and wild grape near azaleas at Brighton Dam.

A question was posed regarding the number of staff in the Outreach office. Ms. August responded that there are currently six staff supporting Community Relations activities and that the Communications side is structured to have six staff as well, but is not yet fully staffed. Discussion then turned briefly to the successful outreach activities in promoting WSSC’s recent decision to purchase a significant amount of wind-generated energy.

4. Forest Study: Dr. Habibian reported that WSSC is still waiting for additional documentation from DNR. At this time Dr. Habibian also informed the TAC that all data had been collected for the sediment study and that the report should be available by the next TAC meeting. He also stated that the sediment oxygen demand study data gathering was complete.

5. Riparian Buffer Programs: Ms. Nelson (MNCPPC) was not present, but Ms. Capuco offered a summary sheet describing the plans for Reddy Branch. Ms. Curtis stated that it would be necessary for DEP to be involved in the planning if any structures were to be built that would require maintenance.

Discussion then turned to Howard County. Ms. Overstreet explained that Howard County did not have much County-owned land, so a prioritization process for privately- owned land had been developed at an October meeting with Ms. Capuco. Based on the new priorities, maps had been created to locate property owners who are already identified as agreeable to easements. Howard County will then focus on contacting agreeable parties to discuss reforestation opportunities. In the discussion concerning this effort, it was stated that Howard County Forest Conservation Fee in Lieu dollars may be made available to plant forest on private land. The focus of those efforts will probably be large properties greater than 5 acres to conserve recordation costs.

New Business

1. Technical Supplement to 2006 TAC Annual Report: A discussion was held regarding inclusion of an internal WSSC memorandum which summarizes the outreach restructuring that occurred in 2006. It was agreed that it was not appropriate to include the memorandum in the Technical Supplement since it was internal to WSSC.

It was also discussed that the urban nutrient management forum information did not belong since it was not an activity the TAC was involved with. Consensus was reached that unless an activity was specific to the TAC it should not be included. However it

C-7

was noted that the forum may become relevant to the TAC in the future if measurable reductions in nutrients are noticed in the reservoir as a result of the agreement.

The TAC agreed that comments on the draft Technical Supplement should be submitted directly to Ms. Capuco on or before January 18 for inclusion in the final report.

2. TAC Membership: Ms. Curtis requested that the TAC clarify the membership of John McCoy (DNR) and Buddy Loffler (MDA) since neither had attended TAC meetings. It was stated that Royden Powell would replace Mr. Loffler. Ms. Capuco offered to continue to contact DNR regarding its assigned member.

Next Meeting

March 13, 2007 1:30-4:00 p.m. in room LK121 at WSSC offices.

Topics: 1. Report on TAC prioritization activity 2. Update on modeling effort 3. Update on Forestry Study 4. Update on Sediment Study 5. Update on Montgomery County pilot program for riparian buffer planting

Adjournment

Meeting Adjourned at 3:35 pm

C-8

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

January 9, 2007 1:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Auditorium

AGENDA

Call To Order/Opening Remarks Chair - Overstreet

Administrative Business Chair - Overstreet 1. Approval of September 2006 TAC and November 2006 Policy Board meeting summary 2. Transfer to new Chair 3. Round table discussion: – What TAC members think about the partnership, our achievements and the challenges to pursue in this year

Old Business 1. Update on Reservoir/Watershed Models All (15 mins) – Mr. Rule will provide a handout for discussion on work to date on the reservoir TMDL model development. 2. Update on Watershed Staff Reorganization Mr. Benton (15 mins) – Mr. Benton will discuss the new organization and duties 3. Update on Public Outreach Reorganization – Ms. August will discuss the new organization and responsibilities 4. Update on Forestry Study Mr. Kagan (15 mins) – Mr. Kagan will discuss the latest completed work on the Forestry Study. 5. Update on Montgomery and Howard County Riparian Buffer MNCPPC Rep and Planting Project Susan Overstreet (15 mins) – A representative of MNCPPC and Susan Overstreet will discuss the status of the Riparian Buffer Planting Project in their respective counties.

New Business 1. Technical Supplement to the 2006 Annual Report All (30 mins) – The group will discuss report content and timeline for submittals

Next Meeting - Topics and Date All

Adjournment Chair

C-9

C-10

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group

Technical Advisory Committee

Meeting Summary

March 13, 2007

Technical Advisory Committee Other Attendees Meosotis Curtis MCDEP Sandy August WSSC Mohammad Habibian WSSC Carrie Capuco Capuco Consulting Jerry Maldonado PGDER Jim Hill MGS Kristal McCormick HCSCD Tobias Kagan WSSC Paul Meyer PGHD Angela Morales HCDPW Katherine Nelson MNCPPC Tim Rule MDE Bert Nixon HCHD Sean Smith DNR Susan Overstreet HCDPZ Darlene Wells MGS Howard Saltzman HCDPW Absent Stan Wong MCDPS Gul Behsudi (alternate) MDE Sharon Mariaca HCSCD John McCoy DNR Dave Plummer MSCD

Meeting was called to order at 1:40

Administrative Business

1. Four corrections were offered to the January 2007 meeting minutes. Two had been provided by e-mail directly to Ms. Capuco. Those included: − Four farms applied for agricultural preservation grants in Howard County however one subsequently withdrew its application − The MDE interest rate for the state-revolving loan used to acquire land or a conservation easement from a willing seller is zero percent; and the interest rate for construction project loans is determined by MDE based on a combination of loans and grants.

2. Two typographical corrections were offered: − The 2007 goal of Howard Saltzman was not intended to be posed as a question – the question mark will be removed − David Plummer’s proper affiliation is MSCD.

Old Business

1. TAC Survey: Ms. McCormick reported that 6 responses to the TAC survey were received. Nine projects received four or more votes. She provided a summary list with those receiving over four votes listed in bold. Dr. Habibian suggested that the TAC

C-11

review the list and discuss it at the next TAC meeting. Discussion followed regarding the purpose of the survey. Dr. Habibian stated that he wants to be certain the TAC is focused on doable activities with meaningful outcomes.

2. Reservoir/Watershed Models: Mr. Rule began his discussion by thanking the TAC for its continued patience and recognizing the thorough work of Ross Mandel. Mr. Rule stated that MDE should receive the modeling report on April 15 from ICPRB. At that time, MDE will perform an internal review. Following incorporation of those comments, MDE will offer the report for interagency review. Mr. Rule offered to include the TAC in the interagency review process. Mr. Rule also offered to discuss the report with the TAC in late May or at the June TAC meeting.

Dr. Habibian asked Mr. Rule to describe the modeling framework. Mr. Rule stated that it is an HSPF watershed model, which accounts for phosphorous, combined with a CE- QUAL-W2 which models reservoirs water quality. He indicated that on the recent runs of the model, responses to loading are more evident and responses to oxygen and chlorophyll are more sensible than with previous runs which used the model developed by TetraTech. Mr. Maldonara queried whether the model was calibrated; Mr. Rule responded that he believed it was for all parameters. Discussion followed regarding a recent US EPA memorandum concerning the Patuxent Watershed, the group determined that the memorandum was related to nutrient TMDL in the Upper Patuxent River and was not relevant to the reservoir model.

Ms. Wells raised a question of reliance on the Tetra Tech model in preparation of the sediment oxygen demand (SOD) study. Mr. Rule indicated that the results of the recent SOD study conducted by the MGS seem compatible with the results they are obtaining through the watershed model.

Dr. Habibian requested that Mr. Rule be sure to provide a copy of the modeling report prior to meeting with the TAC in May or June.

3. Update on SOD Study: Ms. Wells began her presentation with a brief explanation of where the Maryland Geologic Survey sits in the state government. Following that, she explained that most of the SOD study was conducted on Rocky Gorge reservoir due to maintenance at Triadelphia. She indicated that 45 samples were taken at Triadelphia and 40 were taken at Rocky Gorge. Of the 40 taken at Rocky Gorge, 20, covering all sediment classes had total chemistry studies run. Ms. Wells explained that due to the long and narrow shape of Rocky Gorge, it was difficult to obtain full representation. However, the sites that were sampled for SOD determination were selected based on clay parameters.

Preliminary results indicated that nutrient levels are lower in Rocky Gorge. That was attributed to removal of sediment and nutrients in Triadelphia reservoirs..

Mr. Hill then began a description of the sampling equipment used and the challenges faced in using it. Essentially, sediments were sampled and analyzed in place using a SOD chamber, which sealed the sample and measured oxygen levels for two hours.

C-12

Dr. Habibian requested that the TAC review the report and provide comments to Mr. Kagan within two weeks.

Ms. Morales questioned the role of grain size in the analysis. Ms. Wells indicated that variations within Rocky Gorge could be attributed to its geomorphology.

Ms. Curtis then questioned how the SOD study would help with the modeling study. Mr. Rule responded that MDE is in the process of reviewing the SOD study and those significant findings could lead to adjustments in the modeling.

The presentation concluded with a brief discussion concerning the weight of the sampling equipment and how that might affect results. Mr. Hill indicated that MGS had taken that concern into consideration and had done all that was possible to minimize disruption upon lowering the equipment.

4. Sediment Study Update: Mr. Smith explained that his office is completing phase 2 of the sediment study and beginning phase 3. Mr. Smith anticipated providing phase 2 for review by the end of May. A brief discussion followed regarding sharing of bathymetric information. Mr. Smith indicated that he has worked to develop a preliminary volume that links to other studies being conducted on the Chesapeake Bay. He indicated that soon there would be a sediment deposition model available for the Chesapeake Bay.

Dr. Habibian emphasized the importance of receiving the report in May so that WSSC could process DNR invoices.

5. Forestry Study Update: Mr. Kagan reported that Ms. Hariston-Strang has been very busy addressing administration questions and that at this time, a re-draft is not available. However, he also reported that Ms. Strang has been analyzing data on the Baltimore reservoirs to compare with the findings in the Patuxent Reservoir watershed in hope that a strong management plan based on actual experience will be developed for the Patuxent Reservoir watershed.

6. Riparian Buffer Project Updates: Ms. Nelson reported that grant applications for Reddy Branch were moving forward and that she had received approval at the Director level to proceed. Mr. Smith interjected that John McCoy had asked him to specifically express DNR’s excitement to participate in the Reddy Branch Project. Dr. Habibian stated that approximately $400,000 in grants was being sought for the project.

Ms. Overstreet reported that she and Jim Myers (SCD) had met with Ms. Capuco recently and reviewed their site selection criteria. Upon review, Cattail Subwatershed had been selected for a Riparian Buffer project. She reported that Ms. Capuco had prepared a project summary that is under internal review.

Dr. Habibian reminded the TAC that the continued funding of the consultant was dependent upon the success of grants in this year.

C-13

New Business

1. Earth Week Activities: Ms. August reported that there is a lot on the calendar for April and that all TAC members had received information. She then listed some of the workshops: − Rain Barrel workshop to be facilitated by Ms. Curtis (who also prepared the rainbarrels) − 2 composting workshops—one offered by Montgomery County and the other by Howard County – at these workshops compost bins will be provided to participants. − A native plant workshop facilitated by George Ecker of Howard County − Integrated Pest Management to be facilitated by a Montgomery County Master Gardenter Amanda Landvine − A recycling program facilitated by MDE − Organic lawn care facilitated by the cooperative extension service volunteers − Charity bike ride whereby participants pay an entry fee ($22.50) equal to the cost to provide drinking water to a family of four for a month. − Wastewater plant tours facilitated by WSSC plant managers − Watershed day with activities such as canoeing, fishing, games, and cleanup. Hosts include MNCPPC, Bass Pro, Patuxent River Commission, and Isaac Walton League − Sneak Preview April 21 5:30 –7:30 at WSSC to include a showing of the Bernie Fowler film.

2. Ms. Morales mentioned that Howard County also has earth day activities on the 21st.

3. Ms. August then introduced Teresa Bond with WSSC communication office that is assisting Ms. August with these activities.

Next Meeting

1. June 12, 2007, 1:30 p.m.

2. Dr. Habibian then called for items for the next meeting. It was agreed that the first agenda item would be a one-hour discussion of the Reservoir/Watershed model. Ms. Overstreet suggested that the TAC also review the RTG comments on the Baltimore reservoir.

3. Mr. Kagan reminded the TAC that he still needs contact information for the newly appointed Policy Board members.

Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

C-14

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

March 13, 2007 1:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Bid and Training Room (LK121)

AGENDA

Call To Order/Opening Remarks Chair - Habibian

Administrative Business Chair - Habibian 1. Approval of January meeting minutes

Old Business 1. Review of TAC Survey Vice-Chair- McCormick (15 mins) 2. Update on Reservoir/Watershed Models Tim Rule and Ross Mandel (15 mins) 3. Update on SOD Study Darlene Wells and Jim Hill (15 mins) 4. Update on Forestry and Sediment Studies Tobias Kagan (10 mins) − Mr. Kagan will discuss the latest completed work on the three studies.

5. Update on Montgomery and Howard County Riparian MNCPPC Rep and Buffer Planting Project Susan Overstreet (15 mins)

6. A representative of MNCPPC and Susan Overstreet will discuss the status of the Riparian Buffer Planting Project in their respective counties.

7. Grants Status Discussion All (15 mins)

New Business 1. Earth Week Activities Sandy August (15 mins)

Next Meeting - Topics and Date All

Adjournment Chair

C-15

C-16

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group

Technical Advisory Committee

Meeting Summary

July 18, 2007

Technical Advisory Committee Other Attendees Gul Behsudi (alternate) MDE Bob Buglass WSSC Meosotis Curtis MCDEP Carrie Capuco Capuco Consulting Mohammad Habibian WSSC Martin Chandler WSSC Jerry Maldonado PGDER Tobias Kagan WSSC Kristal McCormick HCSCD Lindsay Leiterman HCDPZ Bert Nixon HCHD Ross Mandel ICPRB Susan Overstreet HCDPZ Angela Morales HCDPW Howard Saltzman HCDPW Nancy Roth Versar, Inc. Mark Symborski MNCPPC Tim Rule MDE Stan Wong MCDPS Tom Thornton MDE Absent Deborah Weller PGDER Bob Ensor HCSCD Frank Wise PGHD John McCoy DNR Paul Meyer PGHD Katherine Nelson MNCPPC Dave Plummer MSCD Royden Powell MDA

The meeting was called to order at approximately 1:40 p.m. Dr Habibian informed the TAC that budget to renew the contract with Versar has been renewed by WSSC for a second year of TAC support, although there was no news on two grant applications yet and a denial of one. He then reviewed the agenda with the group.

Discussion of Reservoir/Watershed Draft TMDLs: Mr. Rule began the presentation on the draft TMDLs with a thank you to the TAC for its perseverance in waiting for the distribution. He also acknowledged Mr. Mandel for his excellent work. Mr. Mandel then took the lead for the presentation, thanking Mr. Rule for his leadership and acknowledging Mr. Kagan and the other TAC members who had provided assistance.

Mr. Mandel explained that public comment on the document will begin Friday July 20, 2007 and ends August 20, 2007 (to EPA in September) with a posting of the documents on the MDE website. It was mentioned that the MDE website posting will include an updated version of the TMDL from the one the TAC received in June, although the differences from the interagency version are minor. He then provided a background of including the reservoirs on impaired water listing history and an overview of the criteria and desired endpoints for resolving the impairments.

C-17

Next Mr. Mandel offered an overview of the modeling framework. He listed the models used and the simulation period (CE-QUAL-W2, HSPF, 1998 – 2003). The TMDLs are based on average annual total phosphorous loads for the simulation period which include wet and dry years.

Mr. Mandel emphasized the efforts that were made to make the model consistent with Chesa- peake Bay Program and Tributary Strategy models. He also explained efforts that were taken to make the model responsive to changes in loading rates.

The next part of the presentation focused on the challenges found when calibrating the models. Calibration involved running a baseline scenario and then continuing multiple adjustments and data runs until the simulated results reasonably matched the observed data. The calibrated model indicates that hypoxia remains as a problem even when the watershed is fully forested. He then presented the TMDL load and allocations table and urged the TAC to review their copies (see attached technical memo).

The schedule for TMDL approval was then discussed. Mr. Thornton requested that comments be provided to him by August 20 (e-mail is acceptable to [email protected]. A formal response document will be generated by MDE and released with the final rule. The presentation was then opened for questions.

Ms. Weller queried whether the P release from bottom sediments in the reservoir was accounted for in the models. MDE indicated that because the sediment study was not available at the time the model was run this calculation was not performed. However, Mr. Mandel indicated that he believed the P release would be small and is likely captured in the runs for bottom layers.

Ms. Curtis then asked why the Triadelphia was listed for sediment impairment, especially given that it appears to be in good shape when compared nationally. MDE indicated that the Patuxent Reservoirs 303d listing was older than others and likely not reviewed stringently. He said that unfortunately it is very difficult to de-list a watershed without completing the TMDL process.

Mr. Nixon asked how long the approval process would take once the package was sent to EPA. MDE indicated that it would be 6-9 months. Mr. Rule also emphasized that MDE has had good experience with receiving TMDL approval and that it would likely be viewed as structurally and technically sound.

Discussion then followed on which copy (web or previously distributed) of the TMDL should be reviewed and how comments should be provided to MDE. It was agreed that WSSC would receive all TAC comments, review them, and see if a summary document can be developed, thereby facilitating submission of one set of TAC comments on the proposed TMDL rather than disparate comments by member agencies. All comments were directed to be submitted to Carrie Capuco ([email protected]) by close of business on August 8, 2007. At that point the MDE presenters departed.

Annual Report Development Schedule: Ms. Capuco and Mr. Kagan distributed the Annual Report development schedule. No objections were raised, consequently it was agreed that section drafts were due to Ms. Capuco close of business on September 28, 2007.

C-18

Policy Board Meeting: Mr. Kagan reported that the Policy Board Meeting has been scheduled for Thursday November 8, 2007 at WSSC from 1:30 – 2:30. County contact names should be supplied to WSSC as soon as possible to ensure invitation letters are distributed in a timely fashion. Mr. Maldonado indicated that the Prince Georges County contact will be Charles W. Wilson, the Acting Director of Environmental Resources. Ms. Curtis indicated that she would identify the Montgomery County representative. Questions were raised as to who was to chair the meeting. After research it has been identified that Montgomery County is currently the Policy Board Chair and will be passed to Prince George’s County at the November meeting.

Dr. Habibian then presented the following topics for discussion at the Policy Board meeting: – Sediment Study – Sediment Oxygen Demand Study – Total Maximum Daily Loads – Outreach – Grant progress

Ms. Curtis then suggested that the group identify ways to implement the TMDL and present them as recommendations to the Policy Board. She indicated that the existing action plan will likely address the identified weaknesses. Discussion followed on how the Baltimore reservoirs group (RTG) is addressing implementation. Ms. Overstreet is participating on the RTG and noted that they had begun compiling information about how to track elements needed for the implementation plan, e.g. agricultural best management practices. It was agreed that a representative from the Baltimore Reservoirs advisory committee would be invited to the next TAC meeting.

Questions were then posed regarding the forest management study and recreational survey. Mr. Kagan explained that he had never received a final version of the forest management study but had previously distributed the recreational survey results. It was agreed that the survey would be redistributed to the TAC for review.

Next Meeting

September 18, 2007, 1:30 p.m.in the Chesapeake Room 6104 WSSC.

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at approximately 3:00 p.m.

C-19

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

July 18, 2007 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Chesapeake Room - Room 6104 (6th floor)

AGENDA

Call To Order/Opening Remarks Chair - Habibian

Discussion of Reservoir Draft TMDLs Tim Rule and Ross Mandel (60 mins)

Annual Report Development Schedule Tobias Kagan (15 mins)

Policy Board Meeting Presentation Discussion Chair (15 mins)

Next Meeting - Topics and Date All

Adjournment Chair

C-20

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group

Technical Advisory Committee

Meeting Summary

September 18, 2007

Technical Advisory Committee Other Attendees Gul Behsudi (alternate) MDE Carrie Capuco Capuco Consulting Meosotis Curtis MCDEP Martin Chandler WSSC Mohammad Habibian WSSC Rob Feldt DNR Kristal McCormick HCSCD Anne Hariston-Strang DNR Katherine Nelson MNCPPC Tobias Kagan WSSC Bert Nixon HCHD Lindsay Leiterman HCDPZ Susan Overstreet HCDPZ Angela Morales HCDPW Howard Saltzman HCDPW Nancy Roth Versar, Inc. Mark Symborski MNCPPC Deborah Weller PGDER Stan Wong MCDPS Frank Wise PGHD Absent John McCoy DNR Jerry Maldonado PGDER Paul Meyer PGHD Dave Plummer MSCD Royden Powell MDA

The meeting was called to order at approximately 1:40 p.m. Dr. Habibian explained that the plan for the meeting had intended to include a presentation on TMDL implementation by the Baltimore Reservoirs Technical Group. However, the DNR has completed the forestry study and wanted to share its findings with the TAC and receive its comments. Accordingly, the TMDL implementation discussion was replaced by the DNR presentation. Dr. Habibian offered that discussion with the Baltimore RTG individually can be done via telephone or email.

Dr. Habibian then called for comments on the July 2007 TAC meeting minutes. A brief discussion was held concerning the precision of the statements regarding the Triadelphia Reservoir’s listing for sediment impairment. The minutes were modified to reflect concern over the listing of the Triadelphia reservoir specifically. The minutes were then approved as modified.

Because the DNR representatives were not prepared to present immediately, the discussion turned to the 2008 Earth Week Activities.

Earth Week 2008: Mr. Wise reported that the Outreach Committee has met twice and has decided to change Earth Week celebrations from a series of events throughout the month of April to a large comprehensive event on a single day. The tentative date is Saturday April 12, 2008.

C-21

The tentative title is WSSC and Friends Watershed Festival. Mr. Wise indicated that the committee hopes to hold the event in the Supplee Recreational Area. The committee is striving to create a large tented event with multiple presenters. Ms. Capuco then added that all TAC members will be contacted with a request to provide some type of assistance for the event. Ms. Weller indicated that Prince George’s County will be supplying an Enviroscape model to bring to the Festival. Mr. Wise then closed by stating that the location is still under review and additional information will be forthcoming.

Forest Conservation Plan: The TAC then turned its attention to the Forest Conservation Plan presentation offered by Dr. Hairston-Strang of DNR. An executive summary was given to all TAC members present. Dr. Hairston-Strang indicated that DNR is still addressing some comments provided by WSSC. She then led the group through an extensive presentation.

Dr. Hairston-Strang explained that the primary goal in conserving the reservoir forests is water quality protection; secondary goals include preservation of biodiversity, habitat, and recreation. She then explained the procedure and began with an inventory of the Patuxent Reservoir watershed forests. Inventory findings included:

– 14% of the watershed forest is owned by WSSC – Species diversity is good – Regeneration is better than the Baltimore reservoirs, but still not sufficient for sustainability. – There is a species shift toward Red Maple which is of concern for habitat and potentially water quality – Invasives are widespread – Density is very high in some areas, which can increase risk of insects, fire and disease – Age diversity is low – Shrub cover is low – Species of Concern and a wetland of special state concern are present – Dead wood habitat is sufficient – Acreage of roads is not high, there are opportunities to reduce P and sediment at road crossings – Insect risk exists, but currently is not severe; risk is increasing, especially on dense pine stands.

Management suggestions include:

– Thin dense stands – Manage for species diversity – Spot control invasives prior to forest operations in a stand – Continue deer control – Continue road maintenance

Discussion then followed regarding methods of thinning suggested. Other questions addressed included:

– How long to treat invasives after thinning

C-22

– How slopes were analyzed and considered as a management constraint – How stilt grass impacts seedlings and light level – How species diversity affects each insect’s preference for a specific tree species – The definition of a crowded environment (100-200 mature trees per acre) – Whether DNR intends to provide a Forest Management guidance for all Maryland reservoir forests (Dr. Hairston-Strang indicated that in guidance it would be difficult to adequately address multiple geographic areas.)

The TAC requested copies of the entire study. Mr. Kagan offered to distribute it electronically. Dr. Habibian then thanked Dr. Hairston-Strange for the presentation. In closing, Dr. Hairston- Strang mentioned that natural organic matter is also an issue to consider in the watershed because the preference for Red Maple will result in the release of more organic matter than from other deciduous trees or from pine species. She also suggested that disinfection by products can be impacted by tree selection. Any comments on the forestry study should be sent to Ms. Hairston- Strang with a copy to WSSC.

Annual Report Development Schedule: Mr. Kagan reminded TAC members that all annual report submittals are due the week of September 24, 2007.

Policy Board Meeting: Mr. Kagan reported that the Policy Board Meeting has been scheduled for Thursday November 8, 2007 at WSSC from 1:30 – 2:30. Dr. Habibian then presented the following topics for discussion at the Policy Board meeting:

– Sedimentation Studies – Sediment Oxygen Demand Study – Forest Conservation Plan – Total Maximum Daily Loads – Outreach – Grant progress – Any achievements reported by other members of the TAC

An extensive and pointed discussion followed regarding the future direction of the TAC and the best use of the Policy Board Meeting – particularly the recent successes and failures on the part of the TAC. The main focus was on whether the TAC should continue in an advisory role or be limited to sharing information only. Ms. Curtis proposed this change because the TAC could not meet its advisory responsibility. The TAC had been unable to forward comments concerning the nutrient and sediment TMDL because they had been unable to achieve consensus. Prince George's DER, Howard County Planning and Zoning, MNCPPC, and Montgomery County had all supported the draft set of consensus comments. The other TAC agencies had not commented.

Ms. Curtis stated that she had reviewed WSSC's comments, found them to be excellent technical comments, and could not discern any reason why the proposed comment set on behalf of the TAC was in conflict with the WSSC position. Dr. Habibian stated that while a consensus is the ideal goal, the difference of opinion should be respected. Further discussion focused on who would be responsible and pay for meeting the TMDL requirements. In brief, Ms. Curtis reminded the TAC that the Policy Board at previous meetings had approved the Priority Resources, Action Plans, and priority actions for buffers and outreach. Policy Board discussions

C-23

had made it clear that the WSSC reservoirs will have the greatest direct benefit from the priority actions. Dr. Habibian responded that the normal practice is that pollution mitigation is the responsibility of those who contribute to pollution and not those impacted by it. He also added that this is not a technical issue and is more suitable for consideration by the Policy Board.

The discussion was then concluded with a statement by Dr. Habibian that a draft presentation for the Policy Board would be prepared and shared with the TAC for comment. Ms. Nelson offered to prepare slides and text to portray the ongoing nature of the grants project in Reddy Branch. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:45 p.m.

Next Meeting

January 8, 2008, 1:30 in the Chesapeake Room 6104 WSSC.

C-24

Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

September 18, 2007 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Chesapeake Room - Room 6104 (6th floor)

AGENDA

Call To Order/Opening Remarks Chair - Habibian

Administrative Business Chair - Habibian 1. Approval of July meeting minutes

Old Business 1. Presentation of Final Forestry Study Anne Hairston-Strang (60 mins) 2. Earth Week Activities Sandy August (10 mins) 3. Annual Report Development Schedule Update Tobias Kagan (10 mins) 4. Policy Board Meeting Presentation Discussion Chair (15 mins) – Presentation Content – Due Dates – Dry Run

New Business 1. Future Direction and Composition of the TAC Meo Curtis (15 mins) (Reduction of the TAC from a technical advisory role to an information exchange forum?)

Next Meeting - Topics and Date All

Adjournment Chair

C-25

C-26

APPENDIX D

2007 GRANT APPLICATIONS

D-1

D-2

D-3

D-4

D-5

D-6

D-7

D-8

Chesapeake Bay Trust Grant Application Form Complete the application, attaching additional pages as needed. You can also type directly into the form by downloading the MS Word version from www.chesapeakebaytrust.org. Submit the application form to 60 West Street, Suite 405, Annapolis, MD 21401.

1. Applicant Information

Date: ______

Name of Organization: Howard Soil Conservation District

Mission of Organization: Soil conservation districts are local agencies that provide landowners with technical expertise to install conservation practices on their land. Although not regulatory, we help farmers and other landowners comply with local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations. Our technical staff includes soil conservation planners, agricultural engineers, soil scientists, urban planners and other natural resource professionals.

Tax Status (i.e., 501c3, local government, public school, etc.): Local Government

Executive Officer of Requesting Organization Project Officer Name: Bob Ensor Name: Bob Ensor Title: District Manager Title: District Manager Address: 708 Lisbon Center Drive, Suite E Address: 708 Lisbon Center Drive, Suite E Woodbine, MD 21797 Woodbine, MD 21797 County: Howard County: Howard Daytime Phone: 410-489-7987 Daytime Phone: 410-489-7987 Fax: 410-489-9120 Fax: 410-489-9120 Email Address: [email protected] Email Address: [email protected] Signature: ______Signature: ______Original Signature required Original Signature required

2. Grant Information

Grant program: Which grant program are you applying to? __Mini-Grant______

Amount of Trust funding requested: $4,779.00

Grant period (start date and end date of your project): 11/2007 – 06/2009

In which river, stream, or local watershed will the project be located? Patuxent headwaters Montgomery and Howard Counties. In which county will the project be located? Howard and Montgomery

D-9

3. Project Information - Address each question below. Total length of responses not to exceed 5 pages.

A) Project Abstract: To educate property owners with 7 or less horses on existing assistance programs to implement water quality improvement actions. The applicants, in cooperation with multiple county agencies will conduct a mail survey to identify watershed landowners with 7 or less horses, They will then conduct hands-on educational events for the identified landowners, provide assistance to secure planning and financial assistance to implement water quality improvement actions, conduct outreach to encourage other water quality improvements on neighboring residential properties, and encourage effective maintenance for project life spans.

B) Project Deliverables: The deliverables expected from this project include: Estimated number of volunteers 50 Estimated number of students 20 Number of publications produced and distributed 5,730 Number of presentations/ workshops given 33 (including site visits and follow up visits)

C) Project Description: Address these questions as they apply to your project:

• What are the specific objectives of the project? To increase community engagement in actions to improve water quality utilizing Best Management Practices in the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed, focusing on outreach for horse management. This is extremely important because these property owners may not be part of the traditional farming community and may be unaware of steps they can take to protect the watershed using the available agricultural assistance programs. Federal, State, and County funding assistance programs exist1, but these landowners often have low participation in existing programs.

• What are the steps that will be taken to complete the project (methodology)?

A survey will be mailed to owners of parcels over 2, but less than 100 acres in size in phased segments of the watershed querying whether they have horses on the land. Once identified, those landowners will be invited to a series of hands-on educational events (such as 2-hour field walks in evenings and on weekends) throughout the fall and then offered assistance to prepare applications for assistance to implement water quality improvement actions.

• Is this project an extension of an on-going or recently completed project?

Yes , this is one of many efforts underway by the Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee to enhance the Reservoir/Water Supply, Stream System, Aquatic Biota, Rural Character and Landscape, and Public Awareness and Stewardship in the watershed.

• How does your project meet the goals and criteria of the grant program to which you are applying? (Go to the Application Instructions of the grant program to which you are applying for description of goals and criteria.)

1 MACS, CREP, WHIP, Patuxent Reservoir Protection BMP Cost Share, Stream ReLeaf, MDA Conservation Innovation Grants

D-10

– Raise awareness about the challenges and solutions to restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers; the mailing will reach hundreds of property owners in the watershed, raising their awareness of the issue. Those who respond will benefit from the educational programs and hands on assistance in identifying BMPs on their property.

– Promote collaborative watershed restoration solutions between citizens, businesses, and government; This is a collaborative project between SCDs and DEPs in Howard and Montgomery Counties and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, exemplifying effective multi-governmental approaches to watershed improvement. In addition, by working directly with county residents who either own or board horses, this will embody an exemplary cooperative effort between business, citizens and government.

– Engage citizens in community-based restoration and protection projects that benefit watershed health; Watershed land owners with horses on their property are the target audience for this project. Thus, those property owners and other local citizens will be engaged in a series of restoration and protection projects to benefit watershed health on their own property.

• Describe your organization’s experience in completing similar projects.

The members of this project team have been involved in agricultural conservation initiatives for dozens of years. They are the state experts on BMPs and assistance programs.

• List your project partners and describe what specific roles each partner will play in completing the project.

– Howard Soil Conservation District, Bob Ensor and Jim Myers, will be managing the financial aspects of the project, identifying targeted mailing addresses, compiling survey results for Howard County, conducting educational programs, and assisting in identification of BMPs on individual properties, and assisting in funding request preparation.

– Montgomery Soil Conservation District, David Plummer, and J.G. Warfield, will be identifying targeted mailing addresses, compiling survey results for Montgomery County, conducting educational programs, and assisting in identification of BMPs on individual properties, and assisting in funding request preparation.

– Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, Howard County Department of Public Works, Howard County Planning Department, will assist in conducting educational programs, and assist in identification of BMPs on individual properties, and will assist with project management through participation in the organizing entity -- the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).

– Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission will assist through guidance on the outreach planning, and provide contractor assistance with project planning and technical support.

D) Project Timeline: Outline the project schedule. Include the start date, end date, and major milestones. • Fall 2007 contact targeted landowners • Winter 2007-08 educational events • Spring 2008 application assistance • Summer 2008 ongoing educational events

D-11

• Fall 2008 application assistance • Winter 2008-09 ongoing educational events • Spring 2009 implementation of first round of projects

4. Project Budget

A) Itemized Budget: Using the model below, attach a separate page to outline your entire project budget. List the items, quantity, and price per item. Research prices at the place(s) you will purchase the items before completing the budget.

Amount Matching Funds, Cite the Total Cost Budget Item Quantity and Requested Discounts, or Justification for Budget Item Source Price per Item from the Trust In-Kind Services

Landowner survey HSCD Outreach and citizen identification tool -- development 3 hrs 150.00 0 150.00 150.00 _3_hours x__50_$ = 150 @$50 HSCD Project team determined that a short printed Printing survey and 5730 @ 0.37 0 2,120.00 and 2,120.00 survey with a stamped addressed return mailer return mailers MSCD would likely engage the highest response Print rather than electronic mail was determined Mailing to targeted 5730@ $1.50 4,689.00 0 4,689.00 to engage the highest response. This is the cost landowner group of the mailing and the return postage envelopes HSCD Due to the rural nature of this portion of the state, 3 meetings @ and securing a suitable centrally located meeting Educational Session $75.00 per 0 $225.00 MSCD $225.00 space is essential for good participation. The facility meeting project team anticipates paying use fees to a local fire hall or fraternal organization. The project team determined that offering Educational Session 60@ $1.50 $90.00 0 $90.00 refreshments would set the appropriate tone for refreshments the educational sessions HSCD Landowners will be offered the opportunity to 10 visits and have an SCD member visit their property to Private land site @$200.00 per MSCD identify BMP opportunities and provide advice on 0 $2,000.00 2,000.00 visits visit which existing funding source would be most applicable to each BMP (fee is for Jim Myers or J. G. Warfield to spend 4 hours on each site visit.) HSCD SCD members will provide advice where needed Private land 10 applications and in the funding application process (fee is for Jim application 0 $2,000.00 2,000.00 @$200.00 per MSCD Myers or J. G. Warfield to spend 4 hours on each assistance application site visit.) 10 visits HSCD SCD members will provide advice where needed Implementation @$200.00 per and in the implementation process (fee is for Jim 0 $2,000.00 2,000.00 oversight assistance visit MSCD Myers or J. G. Warfield to spend 4 hours on each site visit.) 10 visits HSCD SCD members will provide reminders and advice Maintenance @$200.00 per and where needed in the maintenance process (fee is 0 $2,000.00 2,000.00 outreach visit MSCD for Jim Myers or J. G. Warfield to spend 4 hours on each site visit.) 40 hours @ HSCD, Project planning meetings, grant administration, $50.00 per WSSC, coordination with other watershed initiatives by Project hour 0 $2,000.00 MSCD $2,000.00 Bob Ensor, Dave Plummer, Jim Myers, Lindsey Management Leiterman, Susan Overstreet, and WSSC contractors

Total 4,779 12,495 17,274

D-12

B) Staff Costs: Please provide a detailed description of staff responsibilities with approximate hours dedicated to project asks and include the percentage of overall staff time dedicated to this project. Please add this information in the budget’s justification column or attach it to the application.

C) Matching Contributions: Total of cash match: $4,345.00 (Excluding volunteer contribution) Estimated value of in-kind donations: $10,150.00 Estimated number of volunteer hours: 180 (landowner time in preparing applications and implementation plans).

5. Attachments

For certain types of projects, such as planting projects, the Trust requires attachments of additional information. Look up your project type on the Required Attachments and Guidance for Commonly Funded Projects for project specific information located at www.chesapeakebaytrust.org/grantprograms.html.

None Required

D-13

D-14

Chesapeake Bay Trust Stewardship Grant Application Form Complete the application, attaching additional pages as needed. You can also type directly into the form by downloading the MS Word version from www.chesapeakebaytrust.org. Submit the application form to 60 West Street, Suite 405, Annapolis, MD 21401.

1. Applicant Information

Date: December 7, 2007

Name of Organization: Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission (MNCPPC)

Mission of Organization: The Maryland General Assembly created MNCPPC in 1927 to develop and operate public park systems, coordinate public recreation programs, and provide land-use planning for physical development throughout Montgomery and Prince George’s counties.

Tax Status (i.e., 501c3, local government, public school, etc.): Local government

Executive Officer of Requesting Organization Project Officer Name: Gwen Wright Name: Katherine Nelson Title: Acting Planning Director Title: Senior Planner Address: 8787 Georgia Ave. Address: 8787 Georgia Ave. Silver Spring , MD 20910-3716 Silver Spring, MD 20910- 3716 County: Montgomery County: Montgomery Daytime Phone: 301-495-4622 Daytime Phone: 301-495-4622 Fax: 301-495-1303 Fax: 301-495-1303 Email Address: [email protected] Email Address: Katherine.Nelson@mncppc- mc.org Signature: ______Signature: ______Original Signature required Original Signature required

2. Grant Information

Select Stewardship category to which you are applying: x Restoration (Up to $35,000) Outreach (Up to $15,000)

Amount of Trust funding requested: $33,654.00 Check here if this is a multi-year request (Please contact Trust staff prior to applying for a multi-year project):

Grant period (start date and end date of your project): March 2008 – March 2013

D-15

In which river, stream, or local watershed will the project be located? Reddy Branch Basin Code 02131107 Subbasin Code -0944 In which county will the project be located? Montgomery

3. Project Information - Address each question below. Total length of responses not to exceed 5 pages.

A) Project Abstract: MNCPCC proposes to plant native trees and shrubs to restore riparian buffer along approximately 1,300 feet of a 1st order reach of Reddy Branch, which is a tributary of the Hawlings River. MNCPCC owns these 2.8 acres, which are part of Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. The two sites are in old-field condition. Reforesting these four acres will require approximately 740 trees measuring 1.5 to 2 inches in diameter, 122 shrubs, and deer-protection measures. The sites require preparation that includes stream bank stabilization in small areas, and three to five years of post-planting maintenance to control invasive plants. Community members will be engaged in the project through volunteer participation in planting and maintenance, distribution of informational flyers, and display of signage.

B) Project Deliverables: List the deliverables expected from this project. Please provide a numeric response for the metrics that apply to your project. Project Participants #/$ Restoration Outcomes # Restoration Outcomes # Estimated number of 40 Sq. ft. of streamside forest buffers 130,680 # of trees planted: 740 volunteers: planted: Estimated number of 20 Linear ft of bank stabilization: 10 # of native plants planted: 122 students: Estimated number of 2 Sq. ft. of raingarden or bioretention # of rain barrels teachers: created: installed/distributed: Outreach Outcomes Sq. ft. of wetlands enhanced/ # of fish to be raised and/or restored: released: # of publications (copies) 500 Sq. ft. of bay grasses (SAV) # of bay grasses (SAV) produced: planted: planted: # of 2 Sq. ft. of oyster reef restored: # of oysters to be raised presentations/workshops: and/or released: Pounds of trash/debris Sq. ft. of invasive species removed: 16,500 # of wildlife habitat removed: structures: # of storm drains stenciled: Linear feet of living shoreline Other: Educational signs 4 created: posted

C) Project Description:

• What are the specific objectives of the project? The primary objective of this project is to implement a collaborative effort to restore riparian buffer along an impaired tributary within the Patuxent watershed. Our specific goals are (1) to educate neighboring residents and students about the importance of healthy riparian buffers for improving and protecting water quality, (2) to improve water quality in Reddy Branch through temperature mitigation and nutrient removal, (3) to stop further degradation of these stream reaches by slowing stormwater runoff from adjacent crop fields where no-till cultivation decreases the permeability of the soil, and (4) to increase terrestrial habitat diversity.

• What are the steps that will be taken to complete the project (methodology)? These sites have been assessed by Montgomery County’s stream restoration specialists, park managers, and senior planning specialists; an agronomist with the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC); and contracted wetland specialists. Trees that merit saving have been identified and flagged.

D-16

Multiple local government agencies have agreed upon a collaborative approach to improve the entire Reddy Branch stream system. The next steps for these particular sites include: – Developing a planting plan (MNCPPC contractor) – Preparing the sites and removing invasive plants (Volunteers & MNCPPC contractor) – Planting (Volunteers and MNCPCC contractor) – Placing educational signs (Volunteers) – Maintaining the sites (MNCPPC park staff, contractors, and volunteers) – Developing and presenting public-education talks and distributing brochures at Sherwood High School and for neighboring community associations (Volunteers & MNCPPC staff) Please note that MNCPPC is contractually obligated to use Highway and Safety Services, Inc. to install, maintain, and guarantee trees and deer protection on park land; however, for this project we will coordinate with the contractor to enable volunteers to participate constructively in the planting and maintenance efforts.

• Is this project an extension of an ongoing or recently completed project? This project is the first in a series of initiatives to be implemented over the next two years to encourage public interest and involvement in a collaborative effort being undertaken by MNCPPC, the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, the WSSC, and others to restore the Reddy Branch stream buffer. MNCPPC selected these sites for initiating this collaborative effort because the land is publicly owned, enabling us to avoid administrative hurdles that could impede implementation. Among the publicly owned parcels, we chose these three acres because they are easily accessible and visible from nearby roads.

Since 1996, the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group has used a Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to work together to protect watershed resources. Through interagency cooperation, this unique cooperative partnership has developed a strategic goal to protect the Patuxent Reservoirs watershed. In 2005, the Technical Advisory Committee identified the Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park as its top priority for riparian forest buffer restoration.

The Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) first published the Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS) in 1998. The CSPS provides County stream resource conditions on a sub watershed basis and recommends programs or policies to preserve, protect, and restore County streams and watersheds.

In 2003, a Watershed Restoration Study was conducted to identify opportunities to enhance and protect aquatic and riparian habitat in the Hawlings River watershed and to reduce sediment and associated nutrient loadings to the Rocky Gorge Reservoir. This study was initiated in support of Montgomery County’s commitment as a signatory of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement to protect the watershed, its tributary streams, and the Rocky Gorge Reservoir. The four part Study used existing biological and physical habitat data and hydrologic analysis to identify priority stream reaches, collected stream bank and channel stability data at 8 monitoring stations, conducted field walks in the priority reaches, developed preliminary designs for 12 stream restoration projects, and identified long- term stream protection needs.

D-17

agricultural and urban best management practices (BMPs), and public environmental stewardship. It included identification of a stream restoration activity in the Reddy Branch subwatershed

• How does your project meet the goals and criteria of the Stewardship grant category (Restoration or Outreach) to which you are applying? Through the involvement of volunteers coordinated by members of the Izaac Walton League, Our House, Inc., nearby schools, nearby residents, and Patuxent Riverkeeper, this project will engage citizens in a multi-agency collaborative effort to improve the condition of the Patuxent watershed by creating or enhancing riparian buffer along Reddy Branch and providing public education about the functions and importance of healthy riparian buffers. The buffer and educational signage at one site will be visible from Brookeville Road, as well as from many homes in the area.

• Describe your organization’s experience in completing similar projects. MNCPPC administers a park system of more than 52,000 acres. Its staff of career employees includes planners, park and recreation administrators, and park police. MNCPPC owns and manages many acres of stream valley throughout the watershed, including Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park.

For this project, MNCPPC will lead a group of partners working together to coordinate the restoration of these headwaters as they have in other riparian buffer projects. One good example is a riparian buffer project near Boyds, Maryland. There, volunteers worked side-by-side with MNCPPC to install riparian buffer in Camp Seneca Special Park.

• List your project partners, including technical partners, and describe what specific roles each partner will play in completing the project.

In 1996, the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement was signed by Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties, Howard and Montgomery Soil Conservation Districts, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) creating a Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to work together to protect watershed resources. Through interagency cooperation, this unique cooperative partnership meets quarterly to discuss status of the implementation of many goals set to protect Patuxent Reservoirs watershed.

For community volunteers, it is important to MNCPPC and the TAC that we offer hands on – meaningful and educational experiences. All volunteers will be treated as well coordinated members of a project team. Refreshments and educational material will be available when their services are used. It is envisioned that volunteers will assist with site preparation, planting, and maintenance activities. All volunteer on-site activity will be coordinated by a qualified professional.

County and state partners have offered technical assistance throughout the entire project. Landscape design, engineering, and planning assistance have all been offered. Soil Conservation District staff have offered to work directly with private landowners when needed. DNR and MNCPPC conservationists will provide wetlands restoration-planning assistance. MDE and Montgomery County DEP will provide technical guidance and engineering oversight.

WSSC has been providing direct funding for project management since August 2006. This funding continues through August, 2008 for a total value of approximately $200,000. This funding provided site assessments, coalition building, and project planning services. For the duration of the project, WSSC’s Outreach office will provide outreach services.

D-18

Secured Individuals Area of Expertise Specific Role Organization Involved MNCPPC Katherine Nelson Planning Project coordination MNCPPC Carol Bergmann Forest Ecologist Technical assistance with plans for planting and maintenance MNCPPC Doug Redmond Stream Ecologist Project planning Mo. Co. DEP Meo Curtis Environmental Planner Project planning, volunteer coordination WSSC Tobias Kagan Environmental Engineer Site assessment and planning WSSC Sandra August Outreach Coordinator Outreach Patuxent Fred Tutman Grass Roots organization Volunteer coordination Riverkeeper Versar, Inc. Nancy Roth WSSC contractor Project planning Capuco Consulting Carrie Capuco WSSC contractor Project coordination assistance Services, Inc. Highway and Safety MNCPPC contractor Site preparation and planting Services Inc. Belmont Elementary Sandra August Green Schools Coordinator Site preparation and planting School and Rosa with WSSC Parks Middle Our House, Inc. Ed Gould Volunteer Site preparation and planting Wildlife Jeff Deschamps and Co-Chairs, Conservation Volunteer coordination Achievement Jim Piateski Committee Chapter-Izaak Walton League of America

D) Project Timeline: Outline the project schedule. Include the start date, end date, and major milestones.

• Planting plan development – February 2008 • Site preparation – March 2008 • Planting – April 2008 • Maintenance – May 2008 – May 2013 • Educational Signage Installation – April 2008

D-19

4. Project Budget

Volun- teer Quantity and Amount hours requested Cash In-kind Source of Total (do not Budget item price per item Justification for budget item from the match match match cost include Trust as in- kind match) By purchasing plant material with outside funding sources, $2,500 MNCPPC will be able to National Tree 740 trees x $20 stretch its limited pool of $13,154 $2,500 $0 Trust (for $15,654 N/A Trees 122 shrubs x $7 restoration money further. MDEP and This site consumes nearly all IWL) of the restoration dollars available in FY07 MNCPPC contractor H.S.I. performs this service at $36,000 per acre which 2.8 acres includes purchase of plant Site @ $36,000 per material, site preparation, preparation, acre 140 installation, deer protection $73,596 planting, and less the cost of $20,000 $53,596 $0 MNCPPC hours and maintenance. To deer protection plant material and promote educational measures associated costs elements, and conserve resources, volunteers will work in conjunction with the contractors. Price has been adjusted accordingly. Maintenance will be conducted by volunteers, including weeding. Efforts Portion of per- will be coordinated by Meo acre fee 70 Maintenance $0 $2,310 $0 MNCPPC $2,310 Curtis of MDEP. Mowing attributable to hours will be conducted by maintenance MNCPPC contractors on the regular park maintenance schedule. 10 hours of 1 sign 24”x36” discussing design @ $50 per benefits of riparian forest hour; WSSC staff buffers to be developed by educational sign – design; Sandy August and Tobias Educational manufacture @ $500 $150 $500 MNCPPC – $1,150 N/A Kagan of WSSC and signage $500 per sign. vendors manufactured by MNCPPC. Forest manufacture 3 signs at regulatory- conservation established locations per signage at $50 per linear foot of forest sign. Project planning meetings, grant administration, MNCPPC, coordination with other Project 80 hours @ $50 $0 $0 $4,000 MDEP, $4,000 N/A watershed initiatives by Management per hour WSSC Katherine Nelson, Meo Curtis, and WSSC contractors.

Total $33,654 $58,556 $4,500 $96,710 210

D-20

5. Attachments

• site plan and • project design • site photos • maintenance plan, including protection statement “ Deer protection will be provided and maintained for all new plantings. “ • list of any native plants used

Documentation of Commitment

• Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement – Pertinent Meeting Minutes • Gold Leaf Group Letter • Mary Bradford Letter • IWL letter • Pax Riverkeeper communication • Montgomery Co DEP Letter • Elementary School communication • Our House communication

D-21

D-22 Chesapeake Bay Trust Grant Application Form Complete the application, attaching additional pages as needed. You can also type directly into the form by downloading the MS Word version from www.chesapeakebaytrust.org. Submit the application form to 60 West Street, Suite 405, Annapolis, MD 21401.

1. Applicant Information

Date:

Name of Organization: Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission

Mission of Organization: M-NCPPC was created by the Maryland General Assembly in 1927 to develop and operate public park systems and provide land use planning for the physical development of the great majority of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties

Tax Status (i.e., 501c3, local government, public school, etc.): local government

Executive Officer of Requesting Organization Project Officer Name: Gwen Wright Name: Katherine Nelson Title: Acting Planning Director Title: Planner Coordinator Address:8787 Georgia Avenue Address: 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD County: Montgomery County: Montgomery Daytime Phone: 301-495-4622 Daytime Phone: 301-495-4622 Fax:301-495-1303 Fax: 301-495-1303 Email Address: [email protected] Email Address: Katherine.Nelson@mncppc- mc.org Signature: ______Signature: ______Original Signature required Original Signature required

2. Grant Information

Grant program: Which grant program are you applying to? ___Mini-Grant______

Amount of Trust funding requested: $4,962.00

Grant period (start date and end date of your project): November, 2007

In which river, stream, or local watershed will the project be located? Reddy Branch – Basin Code 02131107 Sub basin code 021311070944 In which county will the project be located? Montgomery

D-23

3. Project Information - Address each question below. Total length of responses not to exceed 5 pages.

A) Project Abstract: In 2 or 3 sentences, provide a brief description of the project. MNCPPC proposes to plant approximately 850 feet of a 1st and 2nd order stream reach of Reddy Branch, a tributary of the Hawlings River. These two acres of land are part of Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park and are owned by MNCPPC. These two acres have recently been abandoned and are in an old-field condition. The reforestation method for these two acres will require approximately 400 1 to1.5-inch caliper trees, 66 shrubs and deer protection measures. In addition site preparation and three to five years of maintenance for control of invasive plant species will be necessary.

B) Project Deliverables: List the deliverables expected from this project. Please provide a numeric response for the metrics that apply to your project.

Estimated number of volunteers 20 Number of publications produced and distributed -- web Estimated number of students 20 site listing Estimated number of teachers 2 Number of presentations/ workshops given --1 planting Square feet of streamside forest buffers planted event =850*100 Number of native plants planted -- 66 Number of trees planted __400______Number of educational signs posted --1 sign Square feet of invasive species removed -- approximately 400 Other: C) Project Description: Address these questions as they apply to your project:

• What are the specific objectives of the project? The primary objective is to implement a collaborative watershed solution to restore riparian buffers to an impaired tributary on the Patuxent. Our goals are three fold. First, to improve stream resource condition in Reddy Branch from its current 'fair' rating. Second, to educate nearby residents and students through demonstration. Third, to increase terrestrial habitat diversity.

• What are the steps that will be taken to complete the project (methodology)? The site has already been assessed by county stream restoration specialists, park managers, senior planning specialists; a WSSC agronomist; and contract wetlands specialists. A collaborative approach to improve the entire Reddy Branch has been developed and agreed upon by multiple county offices. The next steps include: – Development of a planting plan by MNCPPC contractor – Site preparation by volunteers and MNCPPC contractor (invasives removal) – Planting by volunteers and MNCPPC contractor – Educational signage placement – Maintenance by volunteers

• Is this project an extension of an on-going or recently completed project? This is the first of what is to be a series of ten or more collaborative initiatives that will be implemented over the next two years to improve the Reddy Branch stream system. Installation of this riparian buffer was selected as the initial action due to the ease of implementation caused by public land ownership and freedom from administrative burdens.

D-24

– Raise awareness about the challenges and solutions to restoring the tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. The proposed buffer and associated signage will be visible from nearby Brookeville Road as well as from the many homes in the area. – Promote collaborative watershed restoration solutions between citizens, businesses, and government by implementation under the guidance of multiple government agencies and citizen volunteers. – Engage citizens in community-based restoration and protection projects through involvement in planning, site preparation, planting, and maintenance to improve water quality and habitat.

• Describe your organization’s experience in completing similar projects. MNCPPC was created by the Maryland General Assembly in 1927 to develop and operate public park systems and provide land use planning for the physical development of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and to operate the public recreation programs. State of the art facilities and award winning programs have been the result. The Commission administers a park system of more than 52,000 acres. Its staff of career employees includes planners, park and recreation administrators, park police and administration staff. MNCPPC owns and manages many acres of stream valley throughout the watershed – including Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. MNCPPC will lead a series of partners working together to coordinate restoration of this headwaters area.

• List your project partners and describe what specific roles each partner will play in completing the project.

Secured Individuals Organization Involved Area of Expertise Specific Role MNCPPC Katherine Nelson Planning Project coordination MNCPPC Carol Bergmann Forest Ecologist Technical Assistance with planting and maintenance plans MNCPPC Doug Redmond Stream Ecologist Project Planning MNCPPC Mo. Co. DEP Meo Curtis Environmental Planner Project Planning, volunteer coordination WSSC Tobias Kagan Environmental Engineer Site Assessment and planning WSSC Sandra August Outreach Coordinator Outreach Patuxent Riverkeeper Fred Tutman Grass Roots organization Volunteer coordination Versar, Inc. Nancy Roth WSSC contractor Project Planning Capuco Consulting Carrie Capuco WSSC contractor Project coordination assistance Services, Inc. Highway and Safety MNCPPC contractor Site preparation and planting Services Inc. Wildlife Jeff Deschamps and Co-Chairs, Conservation Volunteer Coordination Achievement Jim Piateski Committee Chapter-Izaak Walton League of America

D) Project Timeline: Outline the project schedule. Include the start date, end date, and major milestones.

• Planting plan development – October 2007 • Site preparation – October 2007 • Planting* – November 2007 • Maintenance – December 2007 – December 2012 • Educational Signage installation – May 2008 *Due to recent drought conditions, planting will depend on rainfall within the next several weeks. If drought conditions persist into the winter, planting will be postponed until the spring of 2008.

D-25

4. Project Budget

Matching

Amount Funds, Quantity and Cite the Total Cost Budget Item Requested Discounts, or Justification for Budget Item Price per Item Source from the Trust In-Kind

Services $2,500 By purchasing plant material with National outside funding sources, 400 trees X Tree Trust MNCPPC will be able to stretch Trees $20 $4,462.00 $4,000.00 (per MDEP $8,462.00 its limited pool of restoration 66 shrubs x $7 And IWL) money further. This site & $1,500 consumes nearly half of the MNCPPC available restoration dollars. 2 acres MNCPPC MNCPPC contractor (HSI) @$36,000 per ($61,778.00 performs this service at $36,000 acre )& per acre which includes purchase less the cost of volunteers of plant material, site preparation, Site plant material ($1,760.00 $63,538.0 and installation. To promote Preparation, $63,538.00 ($8,462.00) $0 - 0 educational elements, and plant material 80 conserve resources, volunteers and planting volunteer from IWL will work in hours @ conjunction with the contractors. $22 per Price has been adjusted by the hour) cost of plant material at $8,462. 100 hours at MNCPPC& Maintenance will be conducted by $22 per hour volunteers Issak Walton League volunteers in to include weeding. Efforts will be coordinated by Meo Curtis Maintenance $0 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 of MDEP. Mowing will be conducted by MNCPPC contractors on the regular park maintenance schedule. WSSC staff 1 sign 24”x36” discussing 10 hours of design benefits of riparian forest buffers design @$50/hr MNCPPC Educational to be developed by Sandy August sign $500.00 vendor $1,000.00 Signage $500.00 and Tobias Kagan of WSSC and manufacture @ manufactur manufactured by MNCPPC $500 e contractors

MNCPPC Project planning meetings, grant MDEP, administration, coordination with Project 40 hours @ $0 $2,000.00 WSSC $2,000.00 other watershed initiatives by Management $50.00 per hour Katherine Nelson, Meo Curtis, and WSSC contractors $77,200.0 Total $4,962.00 $72,238.00 0

B) Staff Costs: Please provide a detailed description of staff responsibilities with approximate hours dedicated to project tasks and include the percentage of overall staff time dedicated to this project. Please add this information in the budget’s justification column or attach it to the application.

C) Matching Contributions: Total of cash match: $ 65,778.00 (Excluding volunteer contribution) Estimated value of in-kind donations: $ 6,460.00 Estimated number of volunteer hours: 230

D-26

5. Attachments

F Required Attachment: Include a simple site plan, project design, and/or photo of the planting/restoration site.

F Required Attachment: List native plants that will be used in the planting/restoration project in the proposal. Funds may be requested for native plant species only.

F Required Attachment: Attach a plan that describes how the project will be maintained (watering, weeding) over time.

D-27

D-28

2007 Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program Application Postmark Deadline: April 2, 2007

Incomplete applications will be returned to the applicant. Please review proposal checklist on last page carefully.

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Organization (to be named as Grantee): Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission Street: 8787 Georgia Avenue City, State, Zip: Silver Spring, MD 20910 U.S. Congressional District: 4th Web Page: www.mncppc.org

Project Contacts: Project Officer: Katherine Nelson Financial Officer:_Faroll Hamer Tele: 301-495-4622 Tele: 301-495-4505 Fax: 301-495-1303 Fax: 301-495-1303 E-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

Tax Status: local government Tax ID#: ______Fiscal Year: 07/01/ to 06/30 (e.g., local government, 501(c)(3) etc.) (assigned by IRS) (month/day) (month/day)

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Name: Coordination Restoration of Headwaters in the Reddy Branch Subwatershed of the Patuxent Location(s) of Project: City: Olney State: Maryland County: Montgomery Watershed: Reddy Branch – Basin Code 02131107 Sub basin Code 021311070944 U.S. Congressional District(s): 4th Latitude: 39.180433 Longitude: 77.0701309 (in decimal degrees; if there is more than one project site, please add additional lines for each site.)

Dates: Project Start Date: 08/10/07 Project End Date: 12/31/08 Application Submission Date: 03/30/07

Grant Category (check one):

□ Project Planning and Design Grant ($10,000-$30,000) XX Implementation Grant ($20,000-$200,000)

Program Goal (check those goals that your project addresses): xx Watershed Restoration xx Watershed Conservation xx Watershed Planning

D-29

GRANT REQUEST Use U.S. dollars (rounded to the nearest hundred) for all amounts listed below: Small Watershed Grant Funds requested: $ 198,800.00 Total Contributions from Partners: $ 1,011,133.00 (cash) $ 297,000.00 (in-kind) Total: $ 1,506,933.00

Project Partner Contributions: Please list the names of all organizations contributing funds, goods or services to this project and value of the contribution. We are interested in all contributions to your project, federal or non-federal. You are welcome to add additional rows as necessary.

Organization name; Dollar value Indicate nature of Indicate whether designate as (F)ederal or of contribution contribution is (A)pplied (N)on-Federal contribution (e.g., cash or specific for, (P)ledged, or (I)n goods and services) hand Washington Suburban $99,299 Contract project planning In Hand Sanitary Commission and site assessment, outreach assistance MNCPPC $77,388 In-kind technical guidance, In Hand project management and plant material Patuxent Reservoir Protection $9,000 In-kind assistance with In Hand Group project planning and project management Gold Leaf Group, Inc. $3,500 In-Kind assistance with labor In-Hand

Maryland DNR $148,000 In-kind assistance with Pledged wetland assessment and planning Our House, Inc. and Patuxent $91,000 In-Kind supply of heavy Pledged Riverkeeper equipment and labor Montgomery County Soil $35,000 In-Kind assistance with Pledged Conservation District planting and plant material Montgomery County DEP $7,500 Project planning assistance Pledged

MDE $639,796 Grant for Stormwater aspects Applying for of project Chesapeake Bay Trust $194,650 Riparian Buffers in Areas A Applying for and B Patuxent River Tributary $3,000 Trees Pledged Team

D-30

PROJECT BUDGET AND PHASING

A) Budget Form

Funds Requested Anticipated Budget from Small Partner Total Justification Category Watershed Grant Contributions Salaries --0-- $77,388-MNCPPC $77,388

Benefits --0--

Travel --0--

Equipment --0--

Supplies and $29,300 $241,644 $276,400 A portion of the expenses for plant Materials material and educational signage for all phases Printing --0--

Other --0--

Contractual $30,000 $5,000 – Our House, $35,000 Site preparation for Meadow Services Inc. Restoration in Area C – based on similar experience with similar projects Contractual $20,000 --0-- $20,000 Maintenance of Area C for 18 Services months to include: Hand weeding; removal of invasives; herbicide application, deer exclosure Contractual $10,000 --0-- $10,000 Management Plan Development for Services Area C meadow restoration Contractual $ 5,000 $55,000 $60,000 Planting Plan development areas C, Services D, and E Contractual $ 3,000 $67,000 $70,000 Site Preparation and Construction Services areas C and D Contractual $1,500 $58,500 $60,000 Maintenance of Areas C and D Services Contractual $50,000 --0-- $50,000 Management Plan for areas D, E, F, Services G and H Contractual $10,000 --0-- $10,00 Pre-project sampling and assessment Services Contractual $10,000 --0-- $10,000 Continued collection of monitoring Services data Contractual $5,000 --0-- $10,000 Computation and assessment of Services outreach measures of success Contractual $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $10,000 Assessment of newly collected data Services Contractual $10,000 --0-- $10,000 Quality Control plan development Services Contractual $10,000 --0-- $10,000 Comparative Assessment Report Services TOTAL 198,800

D-31

C) Project Phasing

Project Phase : In this phase, planting designs, management approaches, Budget NFWF Implementation quality control, and educational materials will be fully Category Funds Coordination developed. Continuing project management and technical Salaries & guidance will occur. Outreach will be conducted to the Benefits: nearly 2000 households in Olney, and baseline Equipment: environmental monitoring data will be assessed. Other: $79,800

Anticipated Partner Contributions for Phase: $436,173.00 TOTAL $79,800

Project Phase: In the installation phase plant materials will be purchased as Budget NFWF Installation will signage and educational displays. Sites will be prepared Category Funds for planting, plant material installed and maintenance begun. Salaries & Monitoring samples will be collected from Reddy Branch. Benefits: Ongoing project management and technical direction will Equipment: $24,500.00 continue through this phase. Other: $74,500.00

Anticipated Partner Contributions for Phase: $904,963.00 TOTAL $89,000.00

Final Project During this phase, newly collected monitoring data will be Budget NFWF Phase: assessed, outreach measures of success will be collected and Category Funds Measurement and computed, and a comparative assessment report will be Salaries & Reporting of prepared. In addition, ongoing project management and Benefits: Outputs technical direction will continue through this phase. Equipment: Other: $30,000.00 TOTAL Anticipated Partner Contributions for Final Phase: $75,963.00 $30,000.00 NFWF 198,800.00 PROJECT TOTAL

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (An original signature page must be received with this application)

I certify that the above information is true and accurate.

______Signature of Executive Director or Project Officer Date

Name, Title

D-32

2007 Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program Coordinated Restoration of Headwaters in the Reddy Branch Sub Watershed of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed -- Proposal Narrative

I. PROJECT ABSTRACT:

A. Project Description: In the Reddy Branch subwatershed of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission (MNCPPC )proposes to lead a series of partners working together to coordinate headwaters restoration. The purpose of the project is to improve water quality through a series of restoration demonstration areas that enhance the aquatic and terrestrial conditions of a historically significant Chesapeake Bay tributary which also serves as source water for the Washington Suburban area’s drinking water system.

B. Final Product(s): Upon completion of this project, water quality in Reddy Branch will improve through the reduction of non-point source pollution by:

• Filtering agricultural nitrogen through multi-species riparian forested buffers • Capture, retention, and filtering of agricultural runoff in a wetland area reducing total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen concentrations, and total phosphorous concentrations to receiving waters • Reduction of highway runoff • Reduction of fertilizer runoff by enhancing existing storm water management, implementing bio-retention areas, and wetland restoration • Providing shade by increasing forest canopy, thus cooling areas of the existing stream for enhanced aquatic habitat, better nutrient cycling, reduction of algae, and increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations • Reducing soil and stream bank erosion thus reducing sedimentation to Reddy Branch

The phase of the project for which National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) support is sought will produce:

• An open-meadow habitat by eliminating invasive non-native shrub and herbaceous species within a 1.13 acre field to encourage growth of a diverse mix of existing native grasses and shrubs to provide habitat for birds, small mammals, and other native fauna (see attached draft concept plans). • Conversion of existing drainage swales in cropland at the headwaters of this tributary into a 1000 foot long and 10 foot wide raingarden (see attached draft concept plans). • Creation of a 125-foot wide, forested riparian buffer along a large section of the main stem Reddy Branch, on the south side of Brookville Road (concept plans attached).

II. PROPOSAL:

A. Project Priority: Immediately following an initial scoping visit to the stream, the project team was motivated by a quote from architect Daniel Burnham -- Make no little plans. They have no power to stir men's blood and probably in themselves will not be realized. Make BIG plans in the hope that they will live through the ages and become a thing of living, burning intensity. Rather than a small forest buffer demonstration, Reddy Branch has the potential to incorporate a myriad of exemplary partnerships and best management practices that will live through the ages.

D-33

Coordinated restoration in Reddy Branch is both a watershed restoration project as well as a watershed conservation project. Reddy Branch comprises a portion of over 250 stream miles in the Patuxent Reservoirs watershed. Over the course of the past 100 years, the stream has been degraded by agricultural activity and residential development.

The funding requested in this application would enable MNCPPC to execute a portion of the work that is planned. It will restore the natural habitat; also it will improve water quality by filtering sediment, fertilizers, and highway pollutants. In this project, MNCPPC will:

• Restore a natural wetland-area with hydric soils from use as drainage swales to rain garden • Reduce agricultural sources of nutrients to the Reddy Branch through use of rain gardens and a native plant meadow • Restore natural habitat through establishment of a native plant meadow • Restore riparian buffer.

The funding requested would also enable MNCPPC to implement a portion of the watershed conservation that is planned. In this project, MNCPPC will:

• Implement a motivational campaign to encourage landowners immediately adjacent to Reddy Branch and within the sub watershed to protect and increase riparian buffers • Expand that campaign to all Patuxent Reservoir watershed residents through extensive outreach • Attempt to work directly with agricultural landowners to develop economic incentives associated with riparian buffers and runoff reduction.

B. Objectives: Coordinated restoration of the Reddy Branch subwatershed seeks to:

• Improve wildlife habitat and water quality through the establishment and enhancement of riparian forest • Improve the capacity of the Olney community to implement forest restoration and stewardship – Engage landowners on a new level about the importance of protecting their riparian forest buffer – Foster and strengthen relationships with the Patuxent River protection groups • Provide outreach and assistance to landowners in the Reddy Branch sub watershed – Reach out to farmers and developers – Implement best management practices in two areas of a single farm through establishment of riparian forest buffer and rain gardens • Develop education programs to broaden public understanding of the value of riparian forest buffers and their role is sustaining and restoring watershed health – Demonstrate and showcase landowner initiative to establish riparian forest buffers C. Overall Context: Relevance to Small Watershed Grant Program Goals: Reddy Branch sub basin has been identified as having a biological impairment. Site assessments have found the following: • The meadow provides inadequate riparian buffer protection and invasive species (i.e., multiflora rose) are becoming established in the eastern end. Heavy deer browsing in the area, in addition to mowing, prevent the adjacent forest from expanding along the stream. Minor streambank erosion was also evident in localized areas.

• Croplands, grass meadow, and lawns extend down to the edge of the streambank, offering

D-34

little to no riparian buffer protection. Horse manure from the neighboring farm has recently (fall 2006) been spread in the meadow adjacent to the stream. • An abandoned farm field is located next to the unnamed tributary that flows northward toward Brookville Road. The field possesses a dense cover of herbaceous, shrub, and woody vine species, and is surrounded by a narrow band of woods on all three sides. Invasive species are becoming well established in large areas. • The headwaters receive drainage from cropland on both sides of the stream. Drainage is currently through low-lying swales that are not actively farmed. Uncontrolled runoff from the fields is causing minor to moderate downstream streambank erosion and other stream channel adjustments. • A large section of mainstem Reddy Branch, on the south side of Brookville Road, passes through an agricultural and residential area. This part of the stream is bordered in various locations by croplands, grass meadow, residential lawns, offering little to no riparian buffer protection. Invasive species have also become established along portions of the stream. • A park, built in the late 1990s, uses conventional stormwater management techniques. Water discharging from a stormwater pond overtops a gravel access road crossing the drainage path below the pond. The intermittently flowing drainage path enters the woods below this pond, where it has become severely eroded, forming a six-foot deep drop that is eroding headward. The receiving stream has also become severely eroded and downcut.

The portions of the coordinated restoration for which NFWF funds are sought would: (1) reduce sediment and nutrient loads; (2) improve water quality, and (3) restore native animal and plan habitat within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The projects also protect the quality of Reddy Branch -- a tributary to the Rocky Gorge Reservoir, one of two drinking water supply reservoirs in the Upper Patuxent the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) owns, which provide water to approximately 1.6 million people. Further, through education and outreach activities, the projects for which NFWF funding is sought strive to increase individual conservation actions.

Relationship to Regional Watershed Initiatives and Plans: The Coordinated restoration of Reddy Branch is directly related to a number of regional watershed initiatives including the Patuxent River Tributary Strategy. 14 studies have been conducted on the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed and Hawlings River over the past twenty years. At this time, TMDLs are being developed for the Reservoir Watershed, which will impact Reddy Branch.

In 1996, the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement was signed by Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties, Howard and Montgomery Soil Conservation Districts, MNCPPC, and the WSSC creating a Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to work together to protect watershed resources. Many of the studies described above were prepared through the TAC. In 2005, the TAC identified the Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park as its top priority for riparian forest buffer restoration (see attached work plan and bibliography).

Continuity and Coordination of Reddy Branch Restoration: In 2006, WSSC engaged contract support for project planning and design for the Reddy Branch subwatershed. Upon initial examination, it was discovered that a forest conservation easement was established on a parcel of private farmland when subdivisions were made. Restoration of this forest area is a portion of the project for which NFWF funding is sought. Additional funding is being sought from another source for creating a 125-foot wide, forested riparian buffer along the western side of the stream for approximately 2,530 linear feet and for creating forested riparian buffer along 515 feet of the stream on both sides. (See proposed plans in the attachment).

Simultaneous with the restoration activities being coordinated by the TAC, Our House, Inc., (www.ourhouse.org) a non-profit corporation is working with MNCPPC to establish a forest conservation bank on

D-35

its portion of the Reddy Branch banks. It is anticipated that in the future, Our House will also initiate a significant wetland restoration project where a portion of the Reddy Branch is currently dammed on their property.

D. Methodology and Work Plan:

Description of Each Major Activity to Be Undertaken: The Hawlings River is located in the eastern part of Montgomery County. The Hawlings River passes through three distinct land use areas. The upper watershed is in rolling agricultural lands. The middle section passes through a narrow, rocky valley. The lower section, contains tributaries from Lower Olney Mill and Reddy Branch. Here, the soils change to a highly erodible type.

The mainstem of Reddy Branch ( HUC # 021311070944, sub-basin name – Reddy Branch) parallels the south side of Brookville Road. The stream passes through a grass meadow immediately upstream and adjacent to Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park and a large contiguous forest. An unnamed tributary to Reddy Branch flows northward toward Brookville Road. The west side of the stream is bordered by croplands, grass meadow, and residential lawns; the eastern side of the stream is forested and part of Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. A large section of mainstem Reddy Branch, on the south side of Brookville Road, passes through an agricultural and residential area. It is bordered on the west side by Zion Road. Half of a community park drains northward away from Olney Laytonsville Road (MD Route 108) into a small tributary to Reddy Branch (see attached map). As referenced above, planning for this project has been underway since 2003. Both the Patuxent River Functional Master Plan and the Olney Master Plan support this type of land use and restoration. WSSC has sent a team of wetlands and stream experts into the field to develop initial site plans. Those planning documents are included in the attachment.

Historical stream monitoring data exists. That data will serve as a baseline for measuring success. Assessment of that existing data is planned for the summer of 2007. At that time, sampling and quality control plans will be developed for measuring project success. In fall of 2008, additional samples will be collected, analyzed, and results reported.

Significant community outreach and education is planned for this implementation phase of Reddy Branch restoration. Educational signs will be prepared and installed at each demonstration area. Educational- hands on sessions will be conducted during site preparation, planting and maintenance days. In addition, interactive educational displays will be prepared for posting on the WSSC and MNCPPC websites as well as at the Brighton Dam Nature Center.

Meadow Restoration (Area C): An abandoned farm field adjacent to Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park is located next to an unnamed tributary to Reddy Branch that flows northward toward Brookville Road. The land is owned by MNCPPC. The roughly triangular shaped area possesses a dense cover of herbaceous, shrub, and woody vine species, and is surrounded by a narrow band of woods on all three sides. Invasive species are becoming well established in large areas of the field. This project would maintain an open-meadow habitat by eliminating invasive non-native shrub and herbaceous species within the 1.13-acre field. The project would encourage growth of the diverse mix of existing native grasses, herbaceous species, and shrubs to provide habitat for birds, small mammals, and other native fauna.

Prior to the project, a detailed planting plan will be developed by MNCPPC botanists and Montgomery County DEP engineers with guidance from MD DNR Wetlands program staff. Invasive and undesirable vegetation must be removed by a combination of mowing, selective herbicide application, and hand- pulling. Our House Inc. and a qualified landscape contractor will prepare the site. In early 2008,

D-36

volunteers assisted by qualified professionals will participate in a demonstration project to plant a mix of native grasses, herbaceous species and shrubs and to install a fenced deer exclosure around the project and install plastic tree tubes (where practicable) to protect the plantings from deer browsing.

Contractors would be hired to maintain the meadow using integrated vegetation management practices, including periodic mowing, selective application of herbicides, and other techniques to control invasive plant species from becoming established. Outreach activity will include long-term land use protection using signs.

Linear Rain Garden and Streamside Buffer Restoration (Area D): South of Brookville Road, the headwaters of the tributary receive drainage from cropland on both sides of the stream. Drainage is currently through low-lying swales that are not actively farmed. Uncontrolled runoff from the fields is causing minor to moderate downstream streambank erosion and other stream channel adjustments. A forested wetland exists along the stream. A portion of Area D is owned by MNCPPC, a portion is owned by an individual. Montgomery County Soil Conservation District staff knows the private land owner will work directly with the private landowner. It is not anticipated that this project would take any land out of productive use; consequently, obstacles to implementation are not foreseen.

This project would convert the existing drainage swales in the two fields to a linear rain garden. The proposed rain garden would be approximately 10-feet wide and extend 1,000 linear feet. The rain garden bioretention area would promote infiltration and evapotranspiration, thereby slowing or eliminating excess runoff and nutrients from the cropland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources staff has offered to develop planting and grading plans for Area D. This project would also expand the existing forested area with a mixture of the existing shrub and tree species to provide additional forested buffer around an existing wetland area. Maryland DNR staff will also assist with planning for this project.

In early 2008, a qualified contractor assisted by volunteers from Our House, Inc. and members of the community would prepare the site. They would remove invasive and undesirable vegetation by mowing, selective herbicide application, and hand pulling.

After site preparation in early 2008, volunteers assisted by qualified professionals will participate in a demonstration project to install a fenced deer exclosure around the project areas, plant a mixture of shrub and tree species to provide additional forested buffer, and work with a qualified contractor to install the rain garden and associated steps. They would also install plastic tree tubes to protect the plantings from deer browsing.

Management would be performed by Our House, Inc. and members of Patuxent Riverkeeper. It would likely use integrated vegetation management practices, including periodic mowing and/or selective basal application of herbicides, and hand pulling to control invasive plant species from becoming established. While working on this area MCSCD would work with private landowners to develop nutrient management plans and other agricultural best management practices for this area as well as others. A comprehensive management approach would be prepared to cover the entire sub-watershed.

Schedule for Completion of Each Activity

2003 --June 2007 – Initial project planning and site assessments September 2007 – Existing monitoring data assessment; quality assurance plan development pre-project sampling and assessment October – November 2007 – Planting, monitoring, and management plan development December 2007 – educational display development January 2008 – coordination with community members on sites C, D, and E

D-37

February – April 2008 – community mailing, purchase plant material, prepare site, install plant material and deer exclosure May – October 2008 – continued collection of monitoring data November – December 2008 – assessment of newly collected data and preparation of comparative assessment report and outreach success documentation.

Permits That May Be Required: It is anticipated that MNCPPC will coordinate the execution of needed permits and authorizations through the regulatory agencies – all of which have been involved with the planning of this projects since its inception. There is no concern that the stream buffer restoration will fail to receive clearances to comply with any Federal, state, or local ordinances.

E. Community-based Collaboration/Partnership: In 1996, when the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement was signed by representatives from 6 government agencies, they began to work together to protect watershed resources. Through interagency cooperation, this unique cooperative partnership has developed a strategic goal reaching beyond meeting the Clean Water Act provisions for fishable and swim able waters, to protecting the Patuxent Reservoirs as envisioned in the Safe Drinking Water Act. In 2005, the Technical Advisory Committee identified the Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park as its top priority for riparian forest buffer restoration.

Multi-Agency coordination for planning, organization, implementation and outreach for the Reddy Branch Restoration project is governed by the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group Policy Board, which meets annually. In November 2006, it directed the TAC to make this project an example of successful coordinated activity among the signatories to the protection agreement. To that end, broad project oversight will be coordinated by the TAC, which meets quarterly. Project progress has been a regular item on the TAC agenda for a year and will continue to be throughout project implementation (see attachments).

MNCCP staff will coordinate the restoration activities with contractor assistance. A contract project manager will assist her. Project communication will flow on a regular basis, with routine project meetings bi-monthly. Ms. Nelson will report to the TAC the progress of the project at each quarterly TAC meeting. WSSC coordinates outreach for the TAC and so the WSSC Outreach Office will retain responsibility to assist with community outreach in conjunction with the Patuxent Riverkeeper and nearby Belmont Elementary School, a participant in WSSC’s Green Schools Partnership Program. Attachments to this proposal include a list of partner organizations. In some way, all of those listed have agreed to assist with getting work done. Formal agreements are in different stages depending on the timing of a partner’s needed involvement.

For community volunteers, Patuxent Riverkeeper members, Our House, Inc., and Gold Leaf Group, (a local business) it is important to MNCPPC and the TAC that Reddy Branch offer hands on – meaningful and educational experiences. All volunteers will be treated as well coordinated members of a project team. Refreshments and educational material will be available when their services are used. It is envisioned that volunteers will assist with site preparation, planting, and maintenance activities. All volunteer on-site activity will be coordinated by a qualified professional. Both Our House, Inc., and Gold Leaf Group have the capability to provide heavy machinery and qualified laborers to assist with the site preparation, planting, and maintenance.

County and state partners have offered technical assistance throughout the entire project. Landscape design, engineering, and planning assistance have all been offered to the phase of this project that the Tar- geted Watershed Initiative would fund as well as other phases of the project. Soil Conservation District staff have offered to work directly with private landowners when needed. DNR and MNCPPC conservationists will provide wetlands restoration-planning assistance. MDE and Montgomery County DEP will provide technical guidance and engineering oversight. WSSC has been providing direct funding for

D-38

project management since August 2006. This funding continues through June 30, 2006 for a total value of approximately $100,000. This funding provided site assessments, coalition building, and project planning services. For the duration of the project, WSSC’s Outreach office will provide outreach services.

G. Dissemination: The coordinated restoration of headwaters in Reddy Branch has been planned not only to improve the subwatershed but also to serve as a replicable demonstration for the Patuxent Reservoirs watershed. First, the project is the first of this kind to be planned, coordinated and implemented by the TAC. TAC members are already planning duplicative projects for implementation. Second, the project is the first-known in the reservoir watershed where so many government agencies are offering resources and working together. Lessons learned through its implementation will be shared with the Potomac watershed protection group and other WSSC operational departments. Third, the general public will have access to information on the riparian buffer planting implementation steps and successes through signage on site and an exhibit at the Brighton Dam nature center.

III. Evaluation

A. Adaptive Management: The coordinated restoration is well suited to adapt to changes under the guidance of the integrated, multidisciplinary management team that guides the project (the TAC). The partners will monitor the project’s effectiveness by assigning teams to visually monitor the reforestation, post-planting sampling, and ongoing water quality monitoring at the Rocky Gorge reservoir. This information will be used to adjust the management of the restoration areas and the planning for the next phases of restoration.

Mid- course corrections will be discussed in the quarterly TAC meetings – with partners such as Patuxent Riverkeeper and Our House, Inc. invited to attend. The decision to make a mid-course change will be in the control of MNCPPC as coordinators, however it is anticipated that MNCPPC will consult with all partners prior to significant changes in approach.

B. Potential Negative Impacts: In this particular topography it is difficult to imaging negative impacts of the restoration. The most likely problems will result from installation of the deer exclosures. Neighbors could be unhappy with deer exclosures because it will increase the deer browsing in other areas. The existing forest could be impacted by the installation of deer exclosures as well. Additionally, removal of invasive plants might leave exposed soil, however, mulch is intended to address that risk.

C. External Effects: The most likely factor that may affect the coordinated restoration would be extreme weather following installation of the raingardens and buffer planting. Extreme weather could necessitate replanting if a significant portion of the plants are destroyed. In addition, if there is a dry summer following the spring planting, watering could be an issue.

D. Transferability: The coordinated restoration of headwaters in Reddy Branch has been planned not only to improve the subwatershed but also to serve as a replicable demonstration for the Patuxent Reservoirs watershed. First, the project is the first of this kind to be planned, coordinated and implemented by the TAC. TAC members are already planning duplicative projects for implementation. Second, the project is the first-known in the reservoir watershed where so many government agencies are offering resources and working together. Lessons learned through its implementation will be shared with the Potomac watershed protection group and other WSSC operational departments. Third, the general public will have access to information on the riparian buffer planting implementation steps and successes through signage on site and an exhibit at the Brighton Dam nature center. EVALUATION LOGIC FRAMEWORK

D-39

Project Name: Coordinated Restoration of headwaters in the Reddy Branch Sub Watershed of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed

Organization: Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission

Post- Indicator Projected Projected Activities → Project Project → Baseline → Project Post- Outputs → Outcome → Output → Project Outcome

Restore and Increased Increased Acres with 1.3 acres of 1.3 acres of Manage variety of native plant and observed 1.3 acres of native native Meadow in herbaceous wildlife invasive invasives herbaceous herbaceous Reddy Branch plants protected diversity plants plants plants Area C hydric soils

Enhanced Increase Linear feet of Restore and 2,530 feet of nutrient groundwater stream bank 2,530 feet of 3000 feet of Manage streambank absorption filtering and erosion stream bank stream bank Meadow in with through recharge – with no with no Reddy Branch intermittent protection of reducing flow erosion erosion Area C erosion hydric soils

Enhance and Continuous Improved Linear feet Maintain a forest buffer water quality buffered 500 linear feet 1000 linear 9,500 linear Riparian Forest along east fork buffered feet buffered feet buffered Buffer in Reddy of Reddy Branch Area D Branch

Enhance and Improved Measurable Continuous Maintain a water quality change from Data to forest buffer Stream Riparian Forest 2000 MBSS Improvement indicate along east fork designated Buffer in Reddy data from Fair stream as of Reddy Good Branch Area D Good Branch

Install and Slowing or Improved Linear feet 10,500 linear Maintain a Rain elimination of water quality with feet of 1000 linear Garden in excess nutrients observable Reddy feet of 1000 linear Reddy Branch from cropland drainage Branch observable feet of Area D swales without drainage raingarden agricultural swales drainage access

Install and Improved Measurable Slowing or Data to Maintain a Rain water quality change from Stream elimination of Improvement indicate Garden in 2000 MBSS designated excess nutrients from Fair stream as Reddy Branch data Good from cropland Good Area D

Coordinated Watershed Increased Number of Restoration residents and public participants 50 1000 16 participants Outreach and landowners awareness of in the project participants households Education aware of the source water

D-40

Post- Indicator Projected Projected Activities → Project Project → Baseline → Project Post- Outputs → Outcome → Output → Project Outcome

importance of protection and types of actions activities protecting the source water.

Direct education Increased Number of Understanding for property public property of planting and owners in awareness of owners 9 10 management 1 participant Reddy Branch source water participating participants participants plans for their areas D, E, F, protection properties and G actions

D-41

D-42

Supporting Documents

D-43

D-44

MAP – Coordinated Restoration of headwaters in the Reddy Branch Sub Watershed

D-45

F. Partner Justification: M-NCPPC was created by the Maryland General Assembly in 1927 to develop and operate public park systems and provide land use planning for the physical development of the great majority of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and to operate the public recreation programs. State of the art facilities and award winning programs have been the result. The Commission administers a park system of more than 52,000 acres. It is composed of stream valley parks, large regional parks, neighborhood parks and park-school recreation areas. Its staff of career employees includes planners, park and recreation administrators, park police and administration staff. MNCPPC owns and manages many acres of stream valley throughout the watershed – including Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. No one agency alone can address the whole subwatershed with using its dedicated resources. Consequently, coordinated effort is needed to successfully create the restoration demonstration areas. MNCPPC will lead a series of partners working together to coordinate restoration of this headwaters area.

A number of assessments and plans have been conducted on the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed and Hawlings River over the past twenty years. At this time, TMDLs are being developed for the Reservoir Watershed, which will impact Reddy Branch. A short bibliography of completed assessments is provided in the attachment. Among those listed are the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS), the Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Study, and The Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Action Plan.

In 2003, twelve reaches of the Hawlings were identified as priority reaches for stream bank stabilization and riparian buffer enhancement projects. To date, only one restoration project has been completed in the Hawlings watershed. To track project progress, look under Watershed Restoration on the DEP web site http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/siteHead.asp?page=/mc/services/dep/index.html. No restoration projects are known to be ongoing in the Reddy Branch sub basin. A forest conservation easement was established on a parcel of private farmland when subdivisions were made. Our House, Inc., a non-profit corporation is working with MNCPPC to establish a forest conservation bank on its portion of the Reddy Branch banks.

In 1996, the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement was signed by Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties, Howard and Montgomery Soil Conservation Districts, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) creating a Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to work together to protect watershed resources. Through interagency cooperation, this unique cooperative partnership has developed a strategic goal reaching beyond meeting the Clean Water Act provisions for fishable and swim able waters, to protecting the Patuxent Reservoirs as envisioned in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Ms. Katherine Nelson will represent MNCPPC and ensure effective coordination of all parties to the project. Through June 30, 2007, that activity will be provided by Carrie Capuco of Capuco Consulting Services, following the conclusion of Ms. Capuco’s existing contract, MNCPPC will contract with a qualified project manager.

Multi-Agency coordination for planning, organization, implementation and outreach for the Reddy Branch Restoration project is governed by the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group Policy Board, which meets annually. In November 2006, it directed the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to make this project an example of successful coordinated activity among the signatories to the protection agreement. To that end, broad project oversight will be coordinated by the TAC, which meets quarterly. Project progress has been a regular item on the TAC agenda for a year and will continue to be throughout project implementation (see attachments).

D-46

Secured Individuals Area of Expertise Specific Role Organization Involved MNCPPC Katherine Nelson Planning Project coordination MNCPPC Carol Bergmann Forest Ecologist Technical Assistance with planting and maintenance plans MNCPPC Doug Redmond Stream Ecologist Monitoring data assessment MNCPPC Tina Wetlands Specialist Planting plans Mo. Co. DEP Meo Curtis Environmental Planner Project Planning Mo. SCD David Plummer Agricultural Planning Project Planning and Outreach Md DNR John McCoy Watershed Management Site Assessment and Project Planning WSSC Tobias Kagan Environmental Engineer Site Assessment, project planning WSSC Sandra August Outreach Coordinator Outreach Howard County Susan Overstreet Planning Project planning Our House, Inc. Richard Benvineto Management Volunteer coordination Patuxent Fred Tutman Grass Roots organization Volunteer coordination Riverkeeper Gold-Leaf Group Paul Saiz Erosion control Installation assistance O’Doherty Group Shelley Rentsch Landscape Architect Cost estimating LA Approached Possible Individuals Area of Expertise Specific Role Organization to be Involved Belmont ES Elizabeth Trott Teacher Volunteer coordination Olney Boys and Elizabeth Deal Management Volunteer coordination Girls Club

Organizations we would like to bring into our partnership include: The Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Maryland Department of Environment, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Center for Watershed Protection.

Letters of Support

Coordinated Restoration of headwaters in the Reddy Branch Sub Watershed of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed

• Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement • Pertinent Meeting Minutes • List of Partners • Gold Leaf Group Letter • MNCPPC Parks Department Letter

D-47

D-48

Attachments

D-49

D-50

H. Technical Assistance Needs for Coordinated Restoration of Headwaters in the Reddy Branch Sub Watershed

Because of the intense government agency involvement in this project through the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee, it is anticipated that this project has direct access to many qualified technical assistance providers. Likely theirs and other’s assistance will be needed for the following activities:

• Direct contact with agricultural land owners • Planting plan and deer protection measure planning • Riparian buffer forest management planning • Wetland restoration planning assistance (DNR has already offered) • Community outreach assistance through the Patuxent River Tributary Team (DNR has already offered)

D-51

D-52

Additional Maps

D-53

D-54

Hawlings River Watershed Map

D-55

Reddy Branch Sub-Basin Map

D-56

Reddy Branch Stream Valley Unit #3 From Rt. 108, NE of Grayheaven Manor Road, Olney

D-57

Reddy Branch Contours

D-58

Map depicting Overview of Reddy Branch Restoration Areas

D-59

Bibliography of Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Studies

• Maryland’s Tributary Strategies for Nutrient Reduction: A Statewide Summary, March 1995

• Patuxent River reservoirs Water Quality Assessment, JTC Environmental Consultants, Inc., March 1984

• Comprehensive Management Planning Study for the Patuxent Reservoir Watershed, Tetra Tech, Inc., July 1997

• Patuxent River Reservoirs Watershed Protection Program, Ecological Analysts, Inc... 1981

• Sedimentation Survey Final Report, Triadelphia Reservoir, Rocky Gorge and Little Seneca Lake Reservoirs, Howard and Montgomery Counties, Patuxent River, Maryland, Ocean Surveys, Inc., June 1997.

• Tributary Strategy for Nutrient Reduction in Maryland’s Patuxent Watershed, May 1995

• Patuxent River Tributary Team Water Quality and Habitat Summary Report, April 1998

• Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Tributary Monitoring and Sediment Nutrient Flux Testing Program Final Report, Versar, Inc., March 2001

• Developing a Patuxent Reservoir Protection Strategy, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, April 1995

• Patuxent Reservoirs Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Source Water Assessment, Maryland Department of the Environment, June 2004

• From the Mountains to the Sea, The State of Maryland’s Freshwater Streams, Maryland Department of the Environment, December 1999

• Maryland Biological Stream Survey, 2000-2004, Riparian Zone Conditions, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, July 2005

• Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Action Plan, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, December, 2003

• Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS), Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, 1998, and 2003

D-60

Coordinated Restoration of Headwaters in Reddy Branch

Proposed Restoration Plans

(copies of the documents were provided in the hard copy grant submission)

D-61

D-62

Coordinated Restoration of Headwaters

in Reddy Branch Project Budget

D-63

D-64

50 16 100 100 Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of (providing heavy heavy (providing and equipment and man-power) community Tributary River (Trees) Team Group Leaf Gold and (mulch installation assistance) community

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection

Match In-kind

Source of Cash Match WSSC

Cash Match $ 5,456 5,456 $

- - 4,472.00 $ MNCPPC Trust Amount from the Requested - $

Cost Total $ 15,000.00 15,000.00 $ 46,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 23,500.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 6000 1, $ 40,000.00 $ MNCPPC 5,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ MNCPPC 23,000.00 $ DNR/Patuxent House Our 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 5,456 $ 20,000.00 $ and House Our Open Field Buffer riparian Reforestation

Item Budget

Area A Area Management Project 15,000.00 $ Coordination Technical 4,472.00 $ 11,625.00 $ Site Assessment 1,875.00 $ Planting plan $ development 7,000.00 $ WSSC and Site preparation construction include: to removal, Invasive - $ herbicide application, 7,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ augering hog, bush toPlant material Patuxent trees, include WSSC hydrophytic shrubs, deer exclosure, mulch, tubes and plastic tree Maintenance to include and mowing Periodic selective herbicide application Signage plan Management development Coordination with community members 800.00 $ 800.00 $

D-65

Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of Consulting Services, Inc. community members community

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection

Match In-kind

Source of Cash Match WSSC

Cash Match $ 5,456 $

- - 4,472.00 $ MNCPPC Trust Amount from the Requested $ - - $

Cost Total $ 4,000.00 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 46,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ $1,000 23,500.00 $ Capuco 32,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ $1,6000 40,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ MNCPPC 5,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ MNCPPC 10,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ Group Leaf Gold and House Our 10,000.00 $ $5,456 20,000.00 $ and House Our Riparian Buffer Reforestation

Item Budget

Educational display display Educational development Mailing Refreshment B Area Management Project 1,600.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 15,000.00 $ Coordination Technical - 300.00 $ $ 4,472.00 $ 11,625.00 $ $2,200 Site Assessment 1,300 $ 1,875.00 $ Planting plan $ development 7,000.00 $ WSSC and Site preparation construction include: to WSSC WSSC removal, Invasive - $ herbicide application, 1,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ augering hog, bush 300.00 Patuxent $ toplant material WSSC trees, include hydrophytic shrubs, businesses local deer exclosure, mulch, tubes and plastic tree Maintenance to include and mowing Periodic selective herbicide application Signage plan Management development Coordination with community members 800.00 $ 800.00 $

D-66

50 Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of Consulting Services, Inc. Co. Montgomery DEP

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection community members

Match In-kind

$5,000.00 OurHouse and

Source of Cash Match (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) WSSC

Cash Match $ 5,456 5,456 $

- - $1,300 WSSC 300.00 $ local businesses Trust Amount from the Requested

Cost Total $ 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ $ 35,000.00 1,000.00 $ Capuco 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ $ 30,000.00 NFWF 20,000.00 $ NFWF 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ NFWF 15,000.00 $ and 5,456 $ MNCPPC 10,000.00 $ NFWF Meadow Restoration

Item Budget

Educational display display Educational development Refreshment C Area Project Management 1,600.00 $ 15,000.00 $ $ Coordination Technical 4,472.00 $ Assessment Site Planting plan development 7,000.00 $ Site Preparation and 1,875.00 $ Construction toPlant material WSSC include: Native herbaceous grasses; plants; shrubs 0 7,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ Maintenance to include: Hand Patuxent of removal weeding; WSSC herbicide invasives; deer application, exclosure Signage plan 4,472.00 $ Management development MNCPPC Coordination with community members 800.00 $ 800.00 $ NFWF

D-67

Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection

Match In-kind

Source of Cash Match (requesting) (requesting) MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF (requesting) MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF (requesting) MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF, Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (requesting)

Cash Match

Trust Amount from the Requested

Cost Total $ 3,000.00 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ NFWF 210,000.00 $ 290,000.00 $ 210,000.00 $ MD DNR, 290,000.00 $ MD DNR,

Item Budget

Educational display display Educational development Refreshment D-H Areas Management Project 1,600.00 $ 75,000.00 $ Coordination Technical 4,472.00 $ Assessment Site Planting plan development 28,000.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 18,750.00 $ WSSC WSSC Site Preparation and Construction 0 300.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 21,000.00 $ Patuxent WSSC businesses local Plant material 7,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ DNR MD 4,472.00 $ MNCPPC 150,000.00 $ MD DNR,

D-68

Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of

Match In-kind

Source of Cash Match MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting), WSSC (requesting), MDE (requesting) (requesting)

WSSC

Cash Match

$ 5,456 5,456 $ Trust Amount from the Requested

Cost Total $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ MD DNR, 15,000.00 $ 10,000 $ 50,000.00 $ 10,000 $ NFWF 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000 $ 10,000.00 $ NFWF 10,000.00 $ NFWF NFWF 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ NMCPPC MNCPPC 10,000.00 $ NFWF

Item Budget

Maintenance to of removal include: herbicide invasives; deer application, exclosure Signage plan Management development Coordination with members community 4,000.00 $ display Educational 27,280 $ development Project Wide Existing monitoring data assessment of Development plan monitoring 4,000.00 $ sampling Preproject and assessment of collection Continued NFWF data monitoring and Computation outreach of assessment measures of success of Replacement equipment monitoring newly of Assessment collected data

D-69

Hours Volunteer 216.00 Match In-kind Source of -

Match In-kind $ 169,288.00 $ 169,288.00

- Source of Cash Match (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting)

Cash Match $ 1,126,099.00 $ 1,126,099.00 Trust Amount from the Requested $ 194,650.00 $ 194,650.00

Cost Total $ 10,000 $ $10,000.00 NFWF - $ NFWF $ 1,589,936.00 $ 1,589,936.00

Item Budget

Quality Control comparative Prepare 10,000 $ report assessment Travel Reimbursement Allowance TOTALS 10,000.00 $ NFWF

D-70

1. Applicant Information

Date: March 9, 2007

Name of Organization: Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission

Tax Status (i.e., 501c3, local government, public school, etc.): Local Government

Executive Officer of Requesting Organization Project Officer Name: Faroll Hamer Name: Katherine Nelson Title: Acting Planning Director Title: Senior Planner Address:8787 Georgia Avenue Address: 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD Silver Spring, MD County: Montgomery County: Montgomery Daytime Phone: 301-495-4622 Daytime Phone: 301-495-4622 Fax:301-495-1303 Fax: 301-495-1303 Email Address: [email protected] Email Address: [email protected] Signature: ______Signature: ______Original Signature required Original Signature required

2. Grant Information

Grant program: Targeted Watershed Grant Program

Amount of Trust funding requested: $ 194,650.00

Grant period (start date and end date of your project): 08/01/07 – 12/31/08

River or sub-watershed in which the project will be completed: Reddy Branch – Basin Code 02131107 Sub basin code 021311070944 County in which the project will be completed: Montgomery

D-71

Targeted Watershed Initiative Grant Application Coordinated Restoration of Headwaters in the Reddy Branch Sub Watershed of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed

A. Description of Requesting Organization: In 1996, the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement was signed by Howard, Montgomery, and Prince George’s Counties, Howard and Montgomery Soil Conservation Districts, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M- NCPPC), and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) creating a Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to work together to protect watershed resources. Through interagency cooperation, this unique cooperative partnership has developed a strategic goal to protect the Patuxent Reservoirs. In 2005, the Technical Advisory Committee identified the Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park as its top priority for riparian forest buffer restoration.

MNCPPC was created by the Maryland General Assembly in 1927 to develop and operate public park systems and provide land use planning for the physical development of the great majority of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and to operate the public recreation programs. State of the art facilities and award winning programs have been the result. The Commission administers a park system of more than 52,000 acres. It is composed of stream valley parks, large regional parks, neighborhood parks and park- school recreation areas. Its staff of career employees includes planners, park and recreation administrators, park police and administration staff. MNCPPC owns and manages many acres of stream valley throughout the watershed – including Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. No one agency alone can address the whole subwatershed. Consequently, MNCPPC will lead a series of partners working together to coordinate restoration of this headwaters area.

B. Description of Project 1. Project Summary: The Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed is in the northern Piedmont region of Maryland along the main stem of the Patuxent River. Reddy Branch comprises a portion of over 250 stream miles in the watershed. Over the course of the past 100 years, the stream has been degraded by agricultural activity and residential development. The funding requested from the Chesapeake Bay Trust would enable MNCPPC to execute a portion of the subwatershed restoration that is planned. MNCPPC proposes to plant approximately 3000 feet of a 1st and 2nd order stream reach of Reddy Branch, a tributary of the Hawlings River. These ten acres of land are part of Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park and are owned by MNCPPC.

Although this stream valley is publicly owned, one side of the stream used to be part of a farm that is still in active agriculture. Approximately half of the area that requires reforestation is still being cropped. The other five acres has recently been abandoned and is in an old-field condition. This area includes some moderately steep (15-25%) slopes and over an acre of wetlands. Because of the type of use and the fact that there are no mitigating buffers along one stream bank, the channel is highly eroded along its entire length. This degradation contributes to the fact that the water quality of this subshed of Reddy Branch has only a fair rating. The other side of the stream is completely forested with a mature, 50-acre, high quality forest that is entirely within public ownership.

The reforestation method for these ten acres will require approximately 2000 1.5-2-inch caliper trees and deer protection measures. In addition site preparation and three to five years of maintenance for control of invasive plant species will be necessary.

2. Geographic Boundaries of the Targeted Watershed: The Hawlings River is located in the eastern part of Montgomery County, draining an area of about 28 square miles and containing about 98 miles of streams. It is a major tributary to the Rocky Gorge Reservoir, one of two drinking

D-72

water supply reservoirs in the Upper Patuxent the WSSC owns, which provide water to approximately 1.6 million people.

The Hawlings River passes through three distinct land use areas. The upper watershed is in rolling agricultural lands east of Laytonsville. The middle section passes through a narrow, rocky valley. The lower section, below Georgia Avenue, contains tributaries from Lower Olney Mill and Reddy Branch. Here, the soils change to a highly erodible type.

The mainstem of Reddy Branch ( HUC # 021311070944, sub-basin name – Reddy Branch) parallels the south side of Brookville Road. The stream passes through a grass meadow immediately upstream and adjacent to Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park and a large contiguous forest. An unnamed tributary to Reddy Branch flows northward toward Brookville Road. The west side of the stream is bordered by croplands, grass meadow, and residential lawns; the eastern side of the stream is forested and part of Reddy Branch Stream Valley Park. A large section of mainstem Reddy Branch, on the south side of Brookville Road, passes through an agricultural and residential area. This part of the stream is bordered in various locations by croplands, grass meadow, residential lawns, and in some places forest. It is bordered on the west side by Zion Road. Half of a community park drains northward away from Olney Laytonsville Road (MD Route 108) into a small tributary to Reddy Branch. The intermittently flowing drainage path enters the woods below this pond,. The receiving stream is located in the strip of woods extending into the center of the property (see attached map).

3. Watershed Planning, Assessments, and On-Going Projects a. Completed Plans and Assessments: A number of assessments and plans have been conducted on the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed and Hawlings River over the past twenty years. At this time, TMDLs are being developed for the Reservoir Watershed, which will impact Reddy Branch. A short bibliography of completed assessments is provided in the attachment. Among those listed are the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS), the Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Study, and The Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Action Plan.

b. Description of non-point source and habitat impairments: The Watershed Restoration Study determined that the primary factors affecting instream habitat in the watershed are: (1) Uncontrolled runoff that in some intensely developed areas has increased post development storm water peak discharges by more than 2000%; (2) Lack of or inadequate riparian buffers and unstable stream banks and channels throughout the watershed; and (3) Need to improve water quality and quantity control benefits of some existing SWM ponds.

D-73

Sub watershed/ Habitat Primary Factors Affecting Unique Characteristics and Stream Condition Condition Stream Condition Management Designation

DEP Baseline Monitoring of Hawlings River was conducted in 1997. The current assessment is based on DEP reference stations and reconnaissance efforts to locate reference stations; M-NCPPC data; land use characteristics; and DNR monitoring in 1993. Reddy Branch - FAIR FAIR Fish samples conducted in lower Agricultural Watershed (preliminary) (preliminary) watershed indicate fair conditions. Management Area Land uses are predominately agricultural in most of Reddy Branch, although runoff from the Olney Mill tributary has had an impact on Reddy Branch below its confluence. High sediment deposition Upper Olney Mill Trib. - POOR Above regional pond uncontrolled Watershed Restoration Area POOR runoff from residential areas has led to channel erosion and habitat degradation. M-NCPPC has implemented a storm water retrofit and restoration project to treat storm water and restore stream channels. Lower Olney Mill Trib. - FAIR Habitat conditions improve to fair Watershed Restoration Area FAIR downstream of Olney Mill SWM pond.

Reddy Branch sub basin has been identified as having a Biological impairment based on 2000 MBSS data. Site assessments have identified the following conditions:

• The meadow provides inadequate riparian buffer protection and invasive species (i.e., multiflora rose) are becoming established in the eastern end. Heavy deer browsing in the area, in addition to mowing, prevent the adjacent forest from expanding along the stream. Minor streambank erosion was also evident in localized areas. • Croplands, grass meadow, and lawns extend down to the edge of the streambank, offering little to no riparian buffer protection. Horse manure from the neighboring farm has recently (fall 2006) been spread in the meadow adjacent to the stream. • An abandoned farm field is located next to the unnamed tributary to Reddy Branch that flows northward toward Brookville Road. The roughly triangular shaped area possesses a dense cover of herbaceous, shrub, and woody vine species, and is surrounded by a narrow band of woods on all three sides. Invasive species, such as wineberry, multiflora rose, Asiatic bittersweet, and mile-a-minute, are becoming well established in large areas. • The headwaters receive drainage from cropland on both sides of the stream. Drainage is currently through low-lying swales that are not actively farmed. Uncontrolled runoff from the fields is causing minor to moderate downstream streambank erosion and other stream channel adjustments. • A large section of mainstem Reddy Branch, on the south side of Brookville Road, passes through an agricultural and residential area. This part of the stream is bordered in various locations by croplands, grass meadow, residential lawns, and in some places forest. The croplands, grass meadow, and lawns extend down to the edge of the streambank, offering

D-74

little to no riparian buffer protection. Invasive species (i.e., multiflora rose, Asiatic bittersweet, garlic mustard) have also become established along portions of the stream. • A park, built in the late 1990s, utilizes conventional stormwater management techniques to control stormwater runoff. Water discharging from a large, dry stormwater pond located next to the northern playing field overtops a gravel access road crossing the drainage path below the pond. The intermittently flowing drainage path enters the woods below this pond, where it has become severely eroded, forming a six-foot deep drop that is eroding headward. The receiving stream, located in the strip of woods extending southward into the center of the property, has also become severely eroded and downcut. This stream channel erosion appears to have been caused by excessive stormwater runoff. Two large wetland meadow areas, containing numerous invasive species, were observed adjacent to the central strip of woods. Drainage from the baseball complex and parking areas flows into grassy swales prior to entering stormwater management (SWM) facilities.

c. Projects On-Going Or Completed In The Watershed: In 2003, twelve reaches of the Hawlings were identified as priority reaches for stream bank stabilization and riparian buffer enhancement projects. To date, only one restoration project has been completed in the Hawlings watershed. To track project progress, look under Watershed Restoration on the DEP web site http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/siteHead.asp?page=/mc/services/dep/index.html. No restoration projects are known to be ongoing in the Reddy Branch sub basin. A forest conservation easement was established on a parcel of private farmland when subdivisions were made. Our House, Inc., a non-profit corporation is working with MNCPPC to establish a forest conservation bank on its portion of the Reddy Branch banks.

4. Project Description: The purpose of the project is to improve water quality through a series of restoration demonstration areas that enhance the aquatic and terrestrial conditions of a historically significant Chesapeake Bay tributary which also serves as source water for the Washington Suburban area’s drinking water system. Immediately following an initial scoping visit to the stream, the project team was motivated by a quote from Daniel Burnham -- Make no little plans. They have no power to stir men's blood and probably in themselves will not be realized. Make BIG plans in the hope that they will live through the ages and become a thing of living, burning intensity. (Daniel Burnham). Rather than a small forest buffer demonstration, Reddy Branch has the potential to incorporate a myriad of exemplary partnerships and best management practices.

a. Planning, Organization, Implementation And Outreach Solutions Proposed Multi-Agency coordination for planning, organization, implementation and outreach for the Reddy Branch Restoration project is governed by the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group Policy Board, which meets Annually. In November 2006, it directed the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to make this project an example of successful coordinated activity among the signatories to the protection agreement. To that end, broad project oversight will be coordinated by the TAC, which meets quarterly. Project progress has been a regular item on the TAC agenda for a year and will continue to be throughout project implementation (see attachments).

MNCCP staff will coordinate the restoration activities with contractor assistance. Ms. Katherine Nelson will represent MNCPPC and ensure effective coordination of all parties to the project. A contract project manager will assist her. Through June 30, 2007, that activity will be provided by Carrie Capuco of Capuco Consulting Services, following the conclusion of Ms. Capuco’s existing contract, MNCPPC will contract with a qualified project manager. Project communication will flow on a regular basis, with routine project meetings bi-monthly. Ms. Nelson will report to the TAC the progress of the project at each quarterly TAC meeting.

D-75

WSSC coordinates outreach for the TAC and so the WSSC Outreach Office will retain responsibility to assist with community outreach in conjunction with the Patuxent Riverkeeper and nearby Belmont Elementary School, a participant in WSSC’s Green Schools Partnership Program.

Specific implementation solutions to be funded by the Targeted Watershed Initiative will include:

• Creating forested riparian buffer along both sides of the stream for approximately 515 feet, extending 100 feet from each bank of the stream. • Creating a 125-foot wide, forested riparian buffer along the western side of the stream for approximately 2,530 linear feet.

The project will utilize a diverse mix of native upland (and hydrophytic, where needed) shrub and tree species to create a corridor along the stream that connects with the adjacent woodlands along the east side of the stream. Prior to the project, mowing, selective herbicide application, and hand pulling will remove invasive and undesirable vegetation. A fenced deer exclosure and plastic tree tubes will be installed to protect the plantings from deer browsing. Integrated vegetation management practices, including periodic mowing and/or selective basal application of herbicides, will be used to control invasive plant species from becoming established. Private landowners will be educated to develop nutrient management plans and other agricultural best management practices. Long-term land use protections using signs, and updated management plans will also be used.

To capture the demonstrative nature of this project, signage will be developed and installed both at the Reddy Branch Stream valley Park and the Brighton Dam nature center depicting the project in a replicable fashion. The goal being to encourage neighboring landowners throughout the Patuxent Reservoir watershed to implement similar restoration measures. b. Comparison Of Proposed Solutions To Those In Plans: The proposed solutions to control invasives and install a riparian buffer are complimentary to other activities called for in the Hawlings River Restoration Plan. They have been well coordinated with appropriate members of the TAC to ensure consistency with projects of Montgomery County, Howard County, WSSC, Soil Conservation District, Maryland DNR, MDE, and our private partners at Our House, Inc., Gold Leaf Group, and Patuxent Riverkeeper. These riparian buffers are a part of the overall larger sub watershed restoration project. c. Role Of Volunteers And Partners: Attachments to this proposal include a list of partner organizations. In some way, all of those listed have agreed to assist with getting work done. Formal agreements are in different stages depending on the timing of a partner’s needed involvement.

For community volunteers, Patuxent Riverkeeper members, Our House, Inc., and Gold Leaf Group, it is important to MNCPPC and the TAC that we offer hands on – meaningful and educational experiences. All volunteers will be treated as well coordinated members of a project team. Refreshments and educational material will be available when their services are used. It is envisioned that volunteers will assist with site preparation, planting, and maintenance activities. All volunteer on-site activity will be coordinated by a qualified professional.

Both Our House, Inc., and Gold Leaf Group have the capability to provide heavy machinery and qualified laborers to assist with the site preparation, planting, and maintenance.

D-76

MNCPPC conservationists will provide wetlands restoration-planning assistance. MDE and Montgomery County DEP will provide technical guidance and engineering oversight.

WSSC has been providing direct funding for project management since August 2006. This funding continues through June 30, 2006 for a total value of approximately $100,000. This funding provided site assessments, coalition building, and project planning services. For the duration of the project, WSSC’s Outreach office will provide outreach services.

d. How Proposed Solutions Complement Activities Underway: This reforestation project is the first of several implementation steps in response to the Patuxent Reservoirs Protection Group’s multi-year strategic planning. The reforestation for which Targeted Watershed Initiative funds are sought is consistent with planned activities throughout the Patuxent Reservoirs watershed. This project encompasses re-application of tested techniques – just in a new location to demonstrate multi- purpose capability. Further, restoration activities are planned through out the remainder of the watershed and are listed in the attached Action Plan (see attachment).

5. Project Timeline

2005-June 2007 – initial project planning February 2007 – Site Assessments September 2007 – Existing monitoring data assessment; quality assurance plan development preproject sampling and assessment October – November 2007 – Planting plan development; monitoring plan development; management plan development December 2007 – educational display planning and development January 2008 – coordination with community members on sites A and B February – April 2008 – community mailing, purchase plant material, prepare site, install plant material and deer exclosure May – October 2008 – continued collection of monitoring data November 2008 – assessment of newly collected data December 2008 – preparation of comparative assessment report and outreach success documentation.

6. Defining Outcomes and Measuring Success and Environmental Improvement Indicators

The Reddy Branch restoration project will provide the best multi-barrier approach based on known research of proven field methods for long term source water protection (Carlton 1990; Dunne and Leopold 1978) – addressing a complete sub watershed of the Hawlings River which ultimately flows through the Patuxent and into the Chesapeake Bay. Upon completion of this project, water quality in Reddy Branch will improve through the reduction of non-point source pollution by:

• Filtering agricultural nitrogen through multi-species riparian forested buffers • Capture, retention, and filtering of agricultural runoff in a wetland area reducing total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen concentrations, and total phosphorous concentrations to receiving waters • Reduction of highway runoff through the establishment of vegetative meadow filtering area • Reduction of fertilizer runoff from multi-use sports complex by enhancing existing storm water management by implementing bio-retention areas and wetland restoration • Providing shade by increasing forest canopy, thus cooling areas of the existing stream for enhanced aquatic habitat, better nutrient cycling, reduction of algae, and increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations • Reducing soil and stream bank erosion thus reducing sedimentation to Reddy Branch

D-77

Activity Project output Indicator(s) Baseline Project goal (what you will (current condition of (achieved value at measure. Include targeted watershed) end of project) units)

Riparian Forest Install 100 foot Linear feet 0 feet 515 linear feet Buffers wide Riparian buffered Forest Buffer with deer protection in open field Riparian Forest Community Number of people 0 receiving 50 Buffer Outreach information on exposed to information forest buffers information

Forest buffer Number of 0 15 installation by community community participants members Riparian Forest Install 100 foot Linear feet 0 feet 2,350 linear feet Buffers wide Riparian buffered Forest Buffer with deer protection Riparian Forest Community Number of people 0 receiving 50 Buffer Outreach information on exposed to information forest buffers information Number of Forest buffer community 0 15 installation by participants community members

7. Maintenance: The riparian forest buffer will have a management plan which will be coordinated among park staff and volunteers. At this time it is anticipated that periodic mowing, weeding, and herbicide application will be needed to control invasives. Regular checking that the deer protection remains in tact will also be required. The Patuxent Riverkeeper and Belmont Elementary School are anticipated to be involved with the maintenance as well as the WSSC outreach staff. It is anticipated that during Earth Month each April a clean up event will be coordinated as a part of that month’s activities.

8. Promoting Transferability: The coordinated restoration of headwaters in Reddy Branch has been planned not only to improve the subwatershed but also to serve as a replicable demonstration for the Patuxent Reservoirs watershed. First, the project is the first of this kind to be planned, coordinated and implemented by the TAC. TAC members are already planning duplicative projects for implementation. Second, the project is the first-known in the reservoir watershed where so many government agencies are offering resources and working together. Lessons learned through its implementation will be shared with the Potomac watershed protection group and other WSSC operational departments. Third, the general public will have access to information on the riparian buffer planting implementation steps and successes through signage on site and an exhibit at the Brighton Dam nature center.

9. Partner Organizations and Qualification:s “Community involvement in neighborhood parks is correlated with an increase in social capital.”2 This project is supported by a strong team, which is intended to continue to grow as other areas of the subwatershed are improved. Because they are the owners of the land, MNCPPC will take the lead for the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Group,

2 Gies, Erica, “The Health Benefits of Parks,” The Trust of Public Land (2006).

D-78

TAC, to implement a multi-barrier approach to water quality restoration. Katherine Nelson is a Senior Planner with MNCPPC who has served as the agency’s representative to the TAC for several years. She identified the Reddy Branch site for forest buffer installation in 2005. She has been working with the development of the project since that time – coordinating partnerships and facilitating site assessments.

Technical leadership has been provided by WSSC senior Environmental Engineer, Tobias Kagan, since August 2006. Mr. Kagan has conducted several site visits, facilitated and reviewed site assessment information, and has mapped the site extensively. Technical leadership will be provided in the implementation phases of this project by several county and state professionals that include engineers, foresters, and biologists. Below is a list of our secured partner organizations. In addition, we have identified organizations that we would like to bring into our partnership to ensure the widest demonstrative capability possible.

Secured Individuals Area of Specific Organization Involved Expertise Role MNCPPC Katherine Nelson Planning Project coordination MNCPPC Carol Bergmann Forest Ecologist Technical Assistance with planting and maintenance plans MNCPPC Doug Redmond Stream Ecologist Monitoring data assessment MNCPPC Tina Wetlands Specialist Planting plans Mo. Co. DEP Meo Curtis Environmental Planner Project Planning Mo. SCD David Plummer Agricultural Planning Project Planning and Outreach Md DNR John McCoy Watershed Management Site Assessment and Planning WSSC Tobias Kagan Environmental Engineer Site Assessment and planning WSSC Sandra August Outreach Coordinator Outreach Howard County Susan Overstreet Planning Project planning Our House, Inc. Richard Benvineto Management Volunteer coordination Patuxent Fred Tutman Grass Roots organization Volunteer coordination Riverkeeper Gold-Leaf Group Paul Saiz Erosion control Installation assistance O’Doherty Group Shelley Rentsch Landscape Architect Cost estimating LA Approached Possible Individuals Area of Specific Organization to be Involved Expertise Role Belmont ES Elizabeth Trott Teacher Volunteer coordination Olney Boys and Elizabeth Deal Management Volunteer coordination Girls Club

10. Site Plans And Permits: The coordinated restoration of headwaters in Reddy Branch project has begun initial planning. Both the Patuxent River Functional Master Plan and the Olney Master Plan support this type of land use and restoration. In addition to two-years of planning discussion between TAC member agencies, under contract with WSSC, Versar, Inc. has sent a team of wetlands and stream experts into the field to perform initial site plans. Those planning documents are included in the addendum. It is anticipated that MNCPPC will coordinate the execution of needed permits and authorizations through the regulatory agencies – all of which have been involved with the planning of this projects since its inception. There is no concern that the stream buffer restoration will fail to receive clearances to comply with any Federal, state, or local ordinances.

D-79

D-80

ATTACHMENTS

Chesapeake Bay Trust Targeted Watershed Initiative Grant Application Coordinated Restoration of Headwaters In the Reddy Branch Sub Watershed Of the Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed

D-81

D-82

Hawlings River Watershed Map

D-83

Reddy Branch Sub-Basin Map

D-84

D-85

Reddy Branch Contours

D-86

Map depicting Overview of Reddy Branch Restoration Areas

D-87

Watershed Planning, Assessments, and On-Going Projects

The Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Action Plan is a follow up to the Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Study. The Plan provides a framework of next steps to implement the Study recommendations and for long-term protection of stream resources. The Study analyses showed that ultimately, stream resources protection can only be achieved through a combination of stream restoration, riparian buffer expansion, other agricultural and urban best management practices (BMPs), and public environmental stewardship. It included identification of a stream restoration activity in the Reddy Branch subwatershed.

D-88

Bibliography of Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Studies

• Maryland’s Tributary Strategies for Nutrient Reduction: A Statewide Summary, March 1995 • Patuxent River reservoirs Water Quality Assessment, JTC Environmental Consultants, Inc., March 1984 • Comprehensive Management Planning Study for the Patuxent Reservoir Watershed, Tetra Tech, Inc., July 1997 • Patuxent River Reservoirs Watershed Protection Program, Ecological Analysts, Inc... 1981 • Sedimentation Survey Final Report, Triadelphia Reservoir, Rocky Gorge and Little Seneca Lake Reservoirs, Howard and Montgomery Counties, Patuxent River, Maryland, Ocean Surveys, Inc., June 1997. • Tributary Strategy for Nutrient Reduction in Maryland’s Patuxent Watershed, May 1995 • Patuxent River Tributary Team Water Quality and Habitat Summary Report, April 1998 • Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Patuxent Reservoir Watershed Tributary Monitoring and Sediment Nutrient Flux Testing Program Final Report, Versar, Inc., March 2001 • Developing a Patuxent Reservoir Protection Strategy, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, April 1995 • Patuxent Reservoirs Triadelphia and Rocky Gorge Source Water Assessment, Maryland Department of the Environment, June 2004 • From the Mountains to the Sea, The State of Maryland’s Freshwater Streams, Maryland Department of the Environment, December 1999 • Maryland Biological Stream Survey, 2000-2004, Riparian Zone Conditions, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, July 2005 • Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Action Plan, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, December, 2003 • Countywide Stream Protection Strategy (CSPS), Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, 1998, and 2003

D-89

D-90

Hawlings River Watershed Restoration Action Plan

(copies of the documents were provided in the hard copy grant submission)

Maryland Biological Stream Survey

Classification and Monitoring Station Locations

(copies of the documents were provided in the hard copy grant submission)

Coordinated Restoration of Headwaters

in Reddy Branch Proposed Restoration Plans

(copies of the documents were provided in the hard copy grant submission)

D-91

D-92

Current Reddy Branch Project Team Members – as of March 15, 2007

MNCP&PC Stormwater Management Environmental Planning Division Division Howard County Maryland Department Health Department of the Environment Prince George's County Montgomery County Dept of Environmental Dept of Environmental Resources Protection Montgomery County Montgomery County Dept of Permitting Services Soil Conservation District Howard County Wash. Suburban San. Comm. Dept of Planning & Zoning Environmental Group Wash. Suburban San. Comm. Maryland Department Outreach Group of Natural Resources Howard County Howard County Soil Conservation District Soil Conservation District Maryland Department Prince George's County of the Environment Health Department Gold Leaf Group Howard County Dept Public Works Our House, Inc

Belmont Elementary School

D-93

1. Budget Justification and Explanation

This project budget has been developed in reliance on actual contractual costs from similar past projects, as well as cost data gathered by Montgomery and Howard Counties, and Maryland DNR. Specifically: • Project Management and Site Assessment costs were based on the actual costs for these tasks currently being expended by WSSC for the Reddy Branch project under a contract with Versar, Inc. • Planting plan costs were estimated by O’Doherty Group, LA based on their 25 years experience with similar development activities • Site preparation, planting and maintenance costs were developed in reliance on per foot costs experienced by Howard County Planning and Zoning and Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection. • Signage, educational display, and outreach costs were estimated by WSSC’s contractor based on professional experience at Back Creek Nature Park in Annapolis, MD. • Monitoring, sampling, quality, and assessment costs were estimated in reliance on over ten years of similar cost data from contractors to WSSC.

D-94

Documentation of Commitment

• Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement − Pertinent Meeting Minutes • Gold Leaf Group Letter • Mary Bradford Letter

D-95

50 16 100 100 Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of (providing heavy heavy (providing and equipment and man-power) community Tributary River (Trees) Team Group Leaf Gold and (mulch installation assistance) community Consulting Services, Inc.

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection

Match In-kind

Source of Cash Match WSSC

Cash Match $ 5,456 5,456 $

- - 4,472.00 $ MNCPPC Trust Amount from the Requested - $

Cost Total $ 15,000.00 15,000.00 $ 46,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 23,500.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 6000 1, $ 40,000.00 $ MNCPPC 5,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ MNCPPC 23,000.00 $ DNR/Patuxent House Our 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 5,456 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ and House Our $1,000 Capuco Open Field Buffer riparian Reforestation

Item Budget Area A Area Management Project 15,000.00 $ Coordination Technical 4,472.00 $ 11,625.00 $ Site Assessment 1,875.00 $ Planting plan $ development 7,000.00 $ and Site preparation WSSC construction include: to removal, Invasive - $ herbicide application, augering hog, bush 7,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ toPlant material Patuxent trees, include WSSC hydrophytic shrubs, deer exclosure, mulch, tubes and plastic tree Maintenance to include and mowing Periodic selective herbicide application Signage plan Management development Coordination with community members display Educational 800.00 $ development 800.00 $

D-96

Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of community members community Consulting Services, Inc.

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection

Match In-kind

Source of Cash Match WSSC

Cash Match $ 5,456 $

- - $1,300 WSSC 300.00 $ local businesses - - 4,472.00 $ MNCPPC Trust Amount from the Requested $ - - $

Cost Total $ 15,000.00 15,000.00 $ 46,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 23,500.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ $1,6000 40,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ MNCPPC 5,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 10,000.00 $ MNCPPC 23,000.00 $ Group Leaf Gold 10,000.00 $ and House Our $5,456 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ and House Our 1,000.00 $ Capuco Riparian Buffer Reforestation

Item Budget Mailing Refreshment B Area Management Project 1,600.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 15,000.00 $ Coordination Technical - 300.00 $ $ 11,625.00 $ 4,472.00 $ Site Assessment $2,200 1,875.00 $ 1,300 $ Planting plan $ development WSSC 7,000.00 $ and Site preparation construction include: to WSSC WSSC removal, Invasive - $ herbicide application, 1,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ augering hog, bush toPlant material Patuxent 300.00 $ trees, include WSSC hydrophytic shrubs, businesses local deer exclosure, mulch, tubes and plastic tree Maintenance to include and mowing Periodic selective herbicide application Signage plan Management development Coordination with community members display Educational 800.00 $ development Refreshment 800.00 $ 1,600.00 $ $

D-97

50 Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of Montgomery Co. Co. Montgomery DEP

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection community members

Match In-kind

$5,000.00 OurHouse and

Source of Cash Match (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) WSSC

Cash Match $ 5,456 5,456 $

Trust Amount from the Requested

Cost Total $ 15,000.00 15,000.00 $ $ 35,000.00 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ $ 30,000.00 NFWF 20,000.00 $ NFWF 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ NFWF 15,000.00 $ 5,456 $ and MNCPPC 3,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ NFWF 3,000.00 $ NFWF Meadow Restoration

Item Budget Area C Area Project Management 15,000.00 $ Coordination Technical 4,472.00 $ Assessment Site Planting plan development 7,000.00 $ Site Preparation and 1,875.00 $ Construction toPlant material WSSC include: Native herbaceous grasses; plants; shrubs 0 Maintenance to 7,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ include: Hand of removal weeding; Patuxent WSSC herbicide invasives; deer application, exclosure Signage plan Management 4,472.00 $ development Coordination with MNCPPC community members 800.00 display $ Educational development Refreshment 1,600.00 $ 800.00 $ NFWF 1,300.00 $ WSSC 300.00 $ businesses local

D-98

Hours Volunteer

Match In-kind Source of

Reservoirs Reservoirs Group Protection

Match In-kind

Source of Cash Match MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF (requesting) MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF (requesting) MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF (requesting) MDE, Montgomery and Co. SCD, NFWF, Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership (requesting)

Cash Match

Trust Amount from the Requested

Cost Total $ 210,000.00 $ 290,000.00 $ 210,000.00 $ MD DNR, 290,000.00 $ MD DNR, 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ MD DNR,

Item Budget Areas D-H D-H Areas Management Project 75,000.00 $ Coordination Technical 4,472.00 $ Assessment Site Planting plan development 28,000.00 $ 18,750.00 $ Site Preparation and WSSC Construction 0 21,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ Patuxent WSSC Plant material 7,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ DNR MD 4,472.00 $ MNCPPC Maintenance to of removal include: 150,000.00 $ herbicide invasives; deer application, MD DNR, exclosure

D-99

Hours Volunteer 216.00

Match In-kind Source of -

Match In-kind $ 169,288.00

Source of Cash Match (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting), WSSC (requesting), MDE (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) (requesting) WSSC (requesting) -

Cash Match $ 5,456 5,456 $ $ 1,126,099.00 Trust Amount from the Requested

$ 194,650.00

Cost Total $ 50,000.00 50,000.00 $ 27,280 $ 15,000.00 $ 10,000 $ 50,000.00 $ 10,000 $ NFWF 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ NFWF 10,000.00 $ NFWF 10,000 $ NFWF 2,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ MNCPPC NMCPPC NFWF $10,000.00 NFWF - $ NFWF $ 1,589,936.00

Item Budget

Signage Signage plan Management development Coordination with community members 4,000.00 $ display Educational development Project Wide Existing monitoring data assessment of Development plan monitoring 4,000.00 $ sampling Preproject and assessment of collection Continued NFWF data monitoring and Computation outreach of assessment measures of success of Replacement equipment monitoring newly of Assessment collected data Quality Control comparative Prepare report assessment 10,000 $ Travel Reimbursement Allowance TOTALS 10,000.00 $ NFWF

D-100